Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA BILL [Lords.]

As amended, considered.

Ordered,

That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third Time and passed, with amendments.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.

Ordered.
That in the case of British Railways Bill Standing Order No. 207 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) be suspended and that the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Lords amendments agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Community Land Act

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he remains satisfied with the operation of the Community Land Act.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): The scheme has made a satisfactory beginning. I look forward to its steady growth in bringing forward land where it is most needed.

Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend accept that if we are to regenerate the older conurbations it is essential that industry, particularly small industry,

should be encouraged to move into such areas? Will my hon. Friend therefore ensure that the procedures of the Act are simplified to enable local authorities to dispose of land to industry more quickly than they can now?

Mr. Barnett: I am not aware of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend has referred. I accept completely what he has said about the need to regenerate the inner areas, and my Department is looking at the provisions of the Act to see how relevant they are to the problem.

Mr. MacKay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, due to the Community Land Act, there is a desperate shortage of housing land for builders to purchase, and that, as a result, there will be increases in the price of houses that will cause suffering to the young first-time house buyers that he is trying to help and protect?

Mr. Barnett: I am aware of no such situation.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I welcome the use that has already been made of the Act, but will the Minister consider giving special permission for development areas such as Tyneside to make fuller use of it for industrial and well as housing development?

Mr. Barnett: Right from the start, we have been anxious not to use the Act as an instrument of regional policy. On the other hand, we are anxious to see the Act used within the regions, as far as it can be, for the benefit of better planning and in the service of better social objectives.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is the Minister aware that in the spring of this year the Community Land Act nearly deprived my constituency of a desperately-needed industrial development with 80 jobs attached to it? Private industry is reluctant to build factories on leasehold land—even with a long lease—because it is not only more difficult but vastly more expensive. Will the Government there for consider amending the Act in that respect?

Mr. Barnett: In the case to which the hon. Lady has referred, the Act did not deprive her constituents of jobs. We try to operate the Act in an intelligent and


sensitive manner, and that was precisely what we did on that occasion.

Mr. Rossi: May I assure the Minister that this is a growing problem, because it is Government policy to insist that local authorities dispose of industrial land only on 99-year leases? It is impossible for many industrialists to obtain finance for new factories on that basis. Will the Government look at this again?
With reference to an answer that the Minister gave just now, may I assure him that house builders are becoming desperate at the prospect of a land famine, which will lead to a housing shortage in many areas unless the Government take firm action to alter some features of the Act and to reduce the development land tax, which is far too high?

Mr. Barnett: That tax is a matter for the Chancellor. I am not aware of the position that the hon. Gentleman has described. No doubt he is aware that the Act makes it possible for local authorities to make land available for house building for owner-occupation. On the hon. Member's first point, I am not aware of such a growing problem, and, as I have already said to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), we try to operate the Act in an intelligent fashion. If a good case is made out, we are prepared to consider allowing longer leases, for example, when there are funding problems of the sort that the hon. Gentleman described.

Direct Labour

Mr. Graham Page: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for introducing new rules to deal with the tendering and accounts of local authority direct labour departments.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I shall introduce new rules on accounting, charging and tendering when we have the opportunity for comprehensive legislation on local authority direct labour organisations.

Mr. Page: This does not need legislation. The right hon. Gentleman could bring these rules in without comprehensive legislation. Is it not the case that the disastrous loss of ratepayers' money by

many direct labour organisations is due in part to the fact that there is no cost control in their accountancy systems or assessment of progress, and that they know how much they have lost only when it is too late to regain it?

Mr. Freeson: There are far too many generalisations and mini-truths mixed up in that supplementary question. In the first place, the matter does require comprehensive legislation. That has been clearly established in the course of debates in the House in recent months. Secondly, I do not accept the generalised remarks that the right hon. Gentleman made about direct labour organisations. There are direct labour organisations which are inefficient and there are private firms which are inefficient. There are, equally, DLOs which have sometimes added burdens to the ratepayers and many private firms which have likewise imposed burdens on them. It is about time that we stopped this ideological conflict.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Is my right hon. Friend aware that where direct labour organisations are well run, such as in the cities of Sheffield and Manchester, they make a valuable contribution to the local authority building programme and in helping the ratepayers, often providing a service where the private sector has fallen down badly, such as in the employment of disabled people and a proportion of apprentices?

Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend is right. There are many instances of excellent practices by DLOs which have saved the ratepayers many millions of pounds over the years.

Mr. Tebbit: Has the right hon. Gentleman heard of the events in South Tyneside District Council where, apart from amassing an enormous loss, the DLO has had to declare over half of its work force redundant? Is he further aware that some councillors there are calling for a proper inquiry into what has been going on? Will he direct his attention to that?

Mr. Freeson: If the local council and the district auditor, who handles such matters, wish to proceed, they will, no doubt, do so. They require no instructions from me in this connection. They have all the authority they need to handle such questions.

Mr. Swain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is mainly in Tory-controlled councils that the direct labour departments are apparently, according to Opposition Members, a failure, because of the sabotaging methods used by Tory councillors? Is he further aware that the morale of the work force is being lowered as a result of practices by Tory-controlled councils? Will he take action to stop it?

Mr. Freeson: I am aware that there are arguments at local level—they are not confined to one side of the political spectrum, if one takes a period of years—that are not directed to the most efficient use of direct works organisations. I am aware also that there are local councils of all political persuasions which have used direct works organisations very effectively. I only wish that hon. Members on the Opposition Benches would act a little more rationally and in a little less doctrinaire fashion in this matter.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are some local authorities which ought to be putting their house in order in this matter and setting a good example even to private industry? Is it possible for him to issue a circular setting out model clauses incorporating accounting procedures that local authorities should adopt? If not, he should legislate.

Mr. Freeson: I have that in mind, and I have stated as much clearly in the House. I take this opportunity to remind the House that it was the Government's wish to introduce legislation to deal with this question but that Opposition Members opposed us on the matter, as they have done on previous occasions.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be better for some Opposition Members to find out what they are talking about in relation to Tyneside authorities before making sweeping allegations?

Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend confirms that much is said in heat and ignorance and that it is about time the subject was studied more quietly and rationally by Opposition Members.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we go on, may I make an appeal for shorter

questions and answers? Five Questions are being answered together on the next Question, all from one party. I shall call other Members afterwards.

Urban Programme

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that voluntary works organisations receive a substantial proportion of the funds available under the recently announced urban aid programme.

Mr. David Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will advise local authorities to circulate details of each phase of the urban aid programme not only to established voluntary organisations but to neighbourhood groups, community organisations and self-help bodies as well.

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that 50 per cent. of each phase of the urban aid programme goes to voluntary organisations, neighbourhood groups, community organisations and self-help bodies.

Mr Peter Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that half the grant aid available under the urban aid programme is earmarked for voluntary organisations, neighbourhood groups, community organisations and self-help bodies.

Mr. MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will advise local authorities to circulate details of each phase of the urban aid programme not only to established voluntary organisations but to self-help bodies, community groups and neighbourhood councils as well.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): I am sure that local authorities will want to keep in close touch with voluntary organisations, which can make a most valuable contribution to solving urban problems. The proportion of funds allocated to them will depend very much on local circumstances and on the local authorities' view of the best way of tackling their problems. I would not wish to limit the flexibility of


the urban programme, or the discretion of the local authorities, by laying down centrally fixed proportions to be allocated to a particular type of body.

Mr. Miller: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that it is necessary to involve people living in the inner city areas in any work that is being done, and that there is unfortunately often some antipathy between voluntary organisations and local authorities, which is why I asked that there should be some direction of the funds being made available?

Mr. Shore: I think that we would all agree that it is very important to involve the people in our cities—certainly in our cities with the worst problems—in the programmes of revitalisation which all of them wish to undertake. I believe that most local authorities have a whole network of connections with voluntary bodies in their areas. They are aware of the contribution that voluntary bodies can make, and I believe that that contribution will be a growing one in the period ahead.

Mr. Steen: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that local authorities do not merely take all the money made available under the urban aid programme as a means of getting extra rate support through the back door? Does he agree that the best way to get people involved is to say that all those who have made applications under the urban aid programme should be involved in the distribution process of determining which schemes should go forward to the Home Office, rather than let local authorities determine the matter on their own?

Mr. Shore: The Act puts the responsibility on the local authorities to make application. They are closer to the ground in their own areas than we can hope to be centrally. I believe it right that they should have the responsibility of acting as a sieve for various proposals put forward. I do not believe that local authorities have shown themselves insensitive to the rôle that voluntary bodies can play. Indeed, voluntary bodies have received a high proportion of the money made available in recent years.

Mr. Bottomley: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why certain applications were not successful? Is not some

form of positive discrimination needed to make sure that a higher proportion of these community initiatives is satisfied and funded by an increased urban aid programme?

Mr. Shore: We certainly have to look at the programme in the future, but in the recent past the proportion going to voluntary bodies has increased. The hon. Gentleman will understand that there are always far more applications for urban aid than it is possible for the Government to meet.

Mr. MacKay: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that voluntary organisations, local residents and local bodies normally know best how their local environment can be improved? If he does, will he take a stage further his original answer and ensure that the Department monitors carefully each local authority's contacts with local voluntary organisations?

Mr. Shore: I believe that local people know best, and I include in them the elected local councillors who represent their areas. That point really must be understood. The hon. Gentleman asked about monitoring. I am particularly taking up with the new partnership authorities under the inner city programme the whole question of how they can bring into the picture in perhaps a more regular way the local bodies in their areas in order to help them play their part in the programme.

Mr. Eyre: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at present it is the local authorities that are under the most pressure, as they have great difficulty in finding the 25 per cent. contribution? As a result, neighbourhood, community and self-help groups suffer most, yet they have a valuable contribution to make. The right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged the difficulty created by the rejection of applications of this sort. When he says that he will look again at urban aid, will he consider the 25 per cent. requirement? To demand that contribution of a local authority may operate as a considerable stumbling block when it cannot meet the demand. It may be possible to amend that requirement.

Mr. Shore: I am not aware that the urban grant arrangement—namely, the 75 per cent. that central Government pay


—has caused difficulties. Local authorities have come forward in almost all cases with substantial programmes which they are willing to finance with their 25 per cent. We have not always been able to match all that they want with the 75 per cent. central Government contribution. In the inner city programmes we are widening the urban aid concept so that we are concerned not exclusively with social problems but with environmental problems and the need to stimulate industry and employment in those areas.

Waste Disposal

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made by the county councils in their survey of suitable sites for waste disposal.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): Section 2 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 is not yet in operation, but of the 46 county waste disposal authorities in England I understand that 15 have completed or nearly completed their surveys, 22 have begun working on them and nine have not yet started.

Mr. Knox: In view of public concern about the disposal of waste, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that fast enough progress is being made? If not, what does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Howell: The information that I have just given the House shows that much progress has been made on a voluntary basis by local authorities that are anxious to proceed. As for the implementation of Section 2, which I want to introduce as fast as I can, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am in touch with the local authority associations on that very point. As soon as they think that it is appropriate for us to implement Section 2, I shall be happy to do so on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of his Department carrying out a national survey to locate those areas able to receive waste material and those areas that need to get rid of it? In that way, would it not be possible to remove much of the dereliction at a relatively low national cost, bearing in mind the

large pockets of unemployment and spare railway capacity in derelict areas?

Mr. Howell: I understand the philosophy behind my hon. Friend's question and I entitrely agree with it. I believe that the Control of Pollution Act will bring about some result, but by a rather different method, namely, by making it the responsibility of the local authorities exporting waste to co-ordinate arrangements in conjunction with the receiving areas. By these processes I think that we shall achieve what my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Sainsbury: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the waste disposal authorities and water authorities have an adequate basis of information upon which to determine the most suitable sites for waste disposal? In the absence of a hydro-geological survey and criteria being issued by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, is there not a risk that much wasted work will take place?

Mr. Howell: I do not think that that is quite true, but what is true is that the reason for our not being able to implement Section 2 initially was mainly the scarce resources of skilled manpower capable of carrying out these services. That is what was holding us up initially. I have given figures that show that local authorities are getting over the problem of the lack of skilled manpower. That is what is shown by the surveys that are now being undertaken. I have every confidence that we can very soon meet the objectives of the Act.

Hurst Spit, Hampshire

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will call in for his decision proposals for any new development taking place on Hurst Spit.

Mr. Guy Barnett: No, Sir. Any application for planning permission for such proposals would be for the local planning authority to consider in the first place, but I understand that there are at present no outstanding applications in relation to this site.

Mr. Adley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the prominent part of the Spit has been advertised for sale—namely, the part adjacent to the castle, including the coastguard cottages? Is he aware that


the advertisement includes the phrase "of interest to builders"? Does he appreciate that this is totally unacceptable to local opinion, which is scandalised that any development on this unique piece of land can even be considered? As the Department owns the castle, does the hon. Gentleman not consider it important that the total environment should be preserved? If he cannot call in the application, will he at least encourage the Nature Conservancy Council, the National Trust or the county council to do what it can to acquire the land when the sale takes place?

Mr. Barnett: Obviously I cannot accept responsibility for advertisements that appear for the sale of land. I repeat what I said in my original answer, that no planning application has yet appeared. I am satisfied that normal planning powers are sufficient, but in the first instance any application must be considered by the local authority, which is aware that this is an area of outstanding natural beauty and a site of special scientific interest.

Council House Rents

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the cost of subsidies for council house rents during the current financial year and during the year ending 5th April 1979.

Mr. Freeson: I estimate that in 1977–78 central Government and rate fund contributions to housing revenue accounts in England will total about £1,220 million, plus about £320 million for rent rebates. The corresponding figures for 1978-79 are £1,230 million and £370 million.

Mr. Gow: Do not these escalating figures contrast with the Government's new commitment to bring about a substantial and continuing reduction in the share of resources required for the public sector? What proposals has the right hon. Gentleman to bring about a more realistic and more fair policy of allocating housing subsidies?

Mr. Freeson: In the first instance I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the Green Paper that was published recently, which sets out proposals for new subsidy arrangements and policy changes. That will be followed by a great deal of consultation.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong to speak about escalation. The figures arc now running fairly stably. If anything, there is a small reduction because of the announcement I made about a month ago in the House to switch £30 million from the subsidy provision—that is the original subsidy provision for this year in the public expenditure White Paper—to investment in rehabilitation work by local authorities.

Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the myth that has been propagated for many years that council tenants benefit at the expense of private owner-occupiers should now be laid to rest? Is it not a fact that major concessions are made to private householders and that it is the council tenants who suffer?

Mr. Freeson: Speaking in global terms, the assistance being provided to local authority tenants and, to some extent, to private tenants by way of supplementary benefit and rent allowances is in line with the global provision by way of tax relief to home owners. In those global terms they are equally treated, although one can argue about the detailed application within each sector and the way in which the money is provided by way of general assistance.

Mr. Rossi: Why are the figures that the right hon. Gentleman gave the House about £300 million less than the figures given in the 1972 public expenditure survey that was carried out by the Government? What is the average amount by which council rents would have to be raised to meet the policy set out by the Chief Secretary to the Treasurey last November, namely, that the proportion of costs met by rebated rents should be increased from 43 per cent. to 50 per cent.? By what figure will total subsidies be reduced when that policy is implemented?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman has asked three questions that are partly erroneously phrased. His reference to the Chief Secretary's statement of last November was inaccurate. The figures to which reference was made were forecast figures at that time. Trends in interest rates and other factors are volatile. In fact, interest rates have come down. A 1 per cent. change in the interest rate can make a difference of about £140


million on the bill. We need only to have changes up and down sharply during the year to get significant changes in the total figures. That is the general answer to the first part of the question.
It is not possible to establish what the position will be in terms of total subsidy spending in the public sector two or three years from now, because we do not know what the interest rates will be and we do not know what the rate of change may be in other factors, such as house building, house purchase, rehabilitation, and the like.

Land Acquisition

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how much land has been acquired by local authorities to date under the Community Land Act.

Mr. Guy Barnett: It is too early to add to the provisional figures given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) on 12th May.

Mr. MacGregor: As the Minister, from an earlier answer, seems unaware of the evidence of a forthcoming land shortage for housing, will he look at the recent House-Builders Federation report "Land for Housing", which clearly shows that a land famine is taking place in some parts of the country? Now that his right hon. Friend has adopted a welcome and more practical approach to extending home ownership in his Green Paper, will he complete the process by putting the Community Land Act on ice and making representations about reducing development land tax to ensure that land is forthcoming?

Mr. Barnett: Under the Community Land Act 1,500 acres have been acquired from willing sellers in the first year, which was a short year because it began as late as August. There does not appear to be any difficulty in the current year in obtaining land for building purposes. Obviously my right hon. Friend and I will examine the situation in the light of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Blenkinsop: So far from freezing the Community Land Act, will my hon. Friend unfreeze it to enable local authorities that are eager to make fuller use of it to do precisely that?

Mr. Barnett: Yes. We want to encourage local authorities to buy land, particularly for industrial and housing purposes, so long as the likelihood is that it will be taken up within a reasonable time. We are afraid that land that has been purchased will lie vacant and unused for some years. We hope to operate the Act in the light of demands for land.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will the Minister now give the House the figure that he did not give in his first answer—namely, that while local authorities bought 1,571 acres of land last year, they resold only 29 acres? Does he agree that builders looking for land from that source will be disappointed?

Mr. Barnett: When we consider that the purchases of land were from August onwards, the fact that only 29 acres for house building purposes have so far been disposed of should not be surprising. The hon. Gentleman, with his professional background, should not find it at all surprising.

Water Industry (White Paper)

Mr. Newton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his White Paper on the water industry, Command Paper No. 6876.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Government's main decisions on the review of the water industry, and the reasons for them, were set out in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) on 13th July.

Mr. Newton: Is the Minister aware that there will be a warm welcome on both sides of the House, I suspect, for the reprieve of the private water companies, including the Essex Water Company, which does a fine job for its consumers, including myself? Would it not be more sensible if he now lifted the threat of nationalisation, which is not wanted either by the employees of these companies or by their consumers? Will he now give them the opportunity to get on confidently with their job without this threat hanging over them?

Mr. Howell: Our view is that it is totally inconsistent to have a divided water industry. Experience in recent years has


shown that our great national water resource ought to be contained within one industry. We have said, I think with unbecoming frankness, that at the moment we have not got a majority in this Parliament to carry our view into fruition.
I have had considerable complaints and representations from some employees of private water companies about the fact that we are not taking them into public ownership at this time. They see their place as being within a national water industry, not in one small unit of it. There are two views amongst employees of private water companies.

Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is strong feeling in the country that the continuance of private water companies is an anomaly and that we need a stronger national water organisation, as proposed in the White Paper? Will my right hon. Friend also comment on proposals for a national navigation authority? Will it be for canals only, or will it extend to changing the status of the existing small navigation authorities which are to be found in different parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Howell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The whole purport of our proposal is to show that we cannot possibly, in logic, have 10 separate nationalised industries operating within one area. There must be a strong central strategy, planning and resource facility, which we propose for the National Water Authority.
It is intended to bring the canal system within the national structure and to charge the NWA with the obligation of creating an inland navigation authority, which will obviously concern itself with all inland water navigation.

Sir W. Elliott: Does the Minister agree that the term "private water companies" is incorrect? Is it not more correct to describe them as statutory water undertakings? Will he accept from me, having some knowledge of water companies, in which I declare an interest, that the staffs of the water companies have overwhelmingly decided that they would prefer to stay out of a nationalised concern?

Mr. Howell: To deal with the last point first, that is not so. There is a divided view. The unions, whether

manual or non-manual, are entirely at one in saying that they would like their members to be within the publicly-owned sector.

Mr. Anthony Grant: They are unrepresentative.

Mr. Howell: No, they are not unrepresentative. As a matter of fact, branches of NALGO from very large authorities, such as the Bristol Waterworks Company, have written to me emphatically along lines totally contradicting the view that has been put forward.
I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) that "private water company" is a misnomer, if only for the reason that private water authorities can operate only with a public facility—the natural water supply of this country.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does my right hon. Friend recall that a little time ago he gave his blessing to the improvement of the South Yorkshire canal waterway so that the boats could travel between Hull and Rotherham? Therefore, will he now say that the improvement of this waterway will start in the near future?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is certainly right in saying that I gave my blessing to the philosophy and principle of the South Yorkshire waterway. Unfortunately, no private enterprise or public authority has yet guaranteed us sufficient traffic, if we spend the capital on it, to justify taking that decision.

Mr. Speed: Is the Minister aware that in terms of efficiency and consumer relations the private water companies compare very well with the regional water authorities? Is he further aware that only a small minority of employees and the Labour Party are in favour of nationalisation, and that no one else in the country is?

Mr. Howell: The answer on efficiency is "Yes and No". Some are better and more efficient than others.
I have already given the answer to the second part of the question. Representatives of many of the employees concerned have written to me in terms that contradict the view that has just been put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman put his point of order after Question Time?

Mr. McNamara: I should like to put it now, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is within his rights, but he is not being fair to the rest of the House.

Mr. McNamara: In view of my right hon. Friend's unsatisfactory answer to a supplementary question, I wish to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Housing (East London)

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will pay an official visit to East London to consider policy on rehabilitation of existing homes.

Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend and I are in close touch with East London local authorities on all housing matters including rehabilitation.

Mr. Neubert: Has the Minister yet asked Yorkshire Television for the papers relating to dealings between the Greater London Council and Novo and Second Genesis? What proposals does he have to prevent taxpayers' and ratepayers' money being made over to unregistered housing associations?

Mr. Freeson: In the first place, it was not a matter of taxpayers' money being made over. Secondly, it is a matter for the GLC. Thirdly, it is not relevant to any official visit that my right hon. Friend or I might make or talks that we might have with East London housing authorities.

Local Authority Tenants

Mr. George Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about his proposal for a charter for local authority tenants.

Mr. Freeson: I expect to receive representations in response to the consultation paper, amplifying the proposals con-

tained in the Green Paper, which I shall be issuing shortly.

Mr. Rodgers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many local authorities with responsibility for housing are neglecting essential repairs and maintenance of council house property? Does not he think that this is outrageous, particularly in view of the fact that public expenditure cuts are being used as an excuse? Will he take steps to meet this situation by introducing a tenants' charter as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Freeson: I deplore any attempt by local authorities to cut down on the standard of maintenance and repairs. There can be no justification for it in terms of public expenditure constraints, because the controls that we have been imposing in recent times have related to capital expenditure and not to revenue programmes, to which my hon. Friend refers. On the question of the tenants' charter, it is certainly the case that those local authorities that are encouraging tenants' management schemes and tenant participation in various aspects of management are able to maintain higher standards and encourage higher standards. This will be an important aspect of the tenants' charter that we shall be seeking to implement. There is no reason at all why a number of the proposals discussed in the Green Paper cannot and should not be implemented now by local authorities. I have been spending a great deal of time in the last three years as Minister encouraging local authorities and housing associations to do just that.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does the Minister agree that the first essential of a council tenants' charter—in the view of council tenants, not politicians—is the chance for tenants to buy their own houses or flats?

Mr. Freeson: No, that is not the first point put to me as a local Member of Parliament, as an ex-member of local government, or as a Minister. If one were to give a choice—this is difficult because it varies from one area to another—far more emphasis is placed on the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers) than on the point made by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg).

Mr. Corbett: Will the charter apply to tenants of commissions for new towns and


development corporations? Will my right hon. Friend consider whether, in the charter, encouragement can be given to local authorities to make it easier for tenants of public property to transfer or exchange?

Mr. Freeson: On the first point, it will be our general intention to apply the ideas set out in the proposed tenants' charter to the tenants of all public sector property. A number of aspects of the tenants' charter will be equally applicable to tenants of private landlords, to whom we shall come in due time. The point that my hon. Friend is making will be taken on board as we proceed with the transfer of new town estates to local authority ownership in the coming years.

Mr. Eyre: Does the Minister remember that when a council tenants' Bill, introduced by Conservatives, was voted down by the Government, the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for housing then gave an assurance that the Government would introduce a Bill on similar lines? Will the Minister undertake that such a Bill will be included in the next Session of Parliament?

Mr. Freeson: I can no more give that undertaking than, if the House had voted in favour of his Bill, the hon. Gentleman could have given an undertaking that a place would be found for that Bill in the queue of Private Members' Bills.

Pollution (Royal Commission's Report)

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had subsequent to the Government's reply to the Sixth Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

Mr. Shore: We have received a favourable response on the White Paper from the Royal Commission. As regards implementation, the detailed arrangements for the Nuclear Waste Management Advisory Committee are in hand, and a review of the research programme has begun.

Mr. Forman: In the right hon. Gentleman's conversations in the light of the Government's White Paper, has the Secretary of State been prompted to reconsider his rather negative attitude to the proposal for a nuclear waste disposal

corporation as recommended in the Flowers Report? What steps have been taken to establish the high-level independent body to look at the interaction between energy policy and environmental policy, and when will we get a debate in Parliament on this very important issue?

Mr. Shore: I recognise and welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in this most important matter. I would like to be more forthcoming but I cannot say when we are having a debate. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to press for a debate. He will have every support that I can give him. I have not rejected the idea of a nuclear waste disposal corporation. I have said that I would seek the advice of the waste disposal advisory committee on the question whether such a corporation would be a useful further development of our disposal policy. I shall put that question to that body when we have formed it. As for the high-level body to advise the Secretary of State for Energy and myself, I hope that we shall be able to make progress on that after my right hon. Friend announces the completion of the formation of the Energy Commission.

Mr. Nelson: Will the right hon. Gentleman please bear in mind that many of us would welcome a statutorily formed nuclear waste advisory committee and would welcome that body being given some executive functions? What steps have been taken to form it?

Mr. Shore: We are obviously consulting widely, but I hope before long to be able to announce the composition of the advisory committee as well as its terms of reference. As for its having executive powers, the hon. Member will recognise from my statement that I am not as yet persuaded that it is right. The advisory committee will give us valuable advice on how we should exercise our responsibilities in this field, including the field of research.

Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disposal of nuclear waste is one of the three key factors in the whole nuclear energy programme? Does he agree that there is no case for proceeding with the nuclear power programme until this problem is solved?

Mr. Shore: As my hon. Friend rightly says, the satisfactory disposal of nuclear waste is the key to the future large-scale development of nuclear power. That is precisely why, in response to the Royal Commission, we have taken a number of new initiatives and set up a number of new organisations to help solve this most difficult of problems.

Water Authorities (Staff)

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is currently the total number of full-time and part-time staff employed by the regional water authorities in England and Wales; and what is the percentage change since April 1974.

Mr. Denis Howell: I understand from the National Water Council that the latest available figure for full-time and part-time equivalent staff employed by the regional water authorities in England and Wales is 60,473 at 31st March 1976. There is no directly comparable figure for April 1974.

Mr. Durant: Does the Minister agree that his new Water Charges Equalisation Bill will do nothing to streamline or reduce staff because it will pay those authorities which now have to pay over to the receiving authorities to take on more staff so that they avoid paying over large sums to the receiving authorities?

Mr. Howell: I agree that the Bill will do nothing on staffing, simply because it is not designed to do so. It is designed to bring a sense of equality and fairness to Wales, East Anglia and northern areas which pay a disproportionately high charge for their domestic water supplies.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) and his Conservative colleagues that the Conservative Party was completely responsible for setting up the regional water authorities? Many of us sat up night after night in the House opposing that measure. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if Parkinson's law has operated here, as I suspect it has, it is entirely the responsibility of the Conservative Party?

Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is quite right. I was on the Opposition Front Bench at the time and led our opposition

to this increase in bureaucracy. I must point out that whereas every ratepayer had one local authority doing these jobs, as a result of the Bill introduced by the Conservatives ratepayers now find district councils, county councils, water authorities and health authorities involved. That is four bureaucracies for the price of one that we face as a result.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Is there any monitoring of performance between the various regional authorities? Does the Minister agree that it is a generally-held view that the provisions of the Water Charges Equalisation Bill are diametrically opposed to the management techniques which we desperately wish to see in the water industry?

Mr. Howell: I am not sure that that is right. No doubt the complicated reasons that the hon. Gentleman has put forward explain why he abstained from voting on my proposal. I must correct what I said a moment ago when I said that we now have four bureaucracies for the price of one. In fact we have four bureaucracies for more than four times the price of one.

Fairgrounds

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that existing planning legislation is adequate to deal with the noise and nuisance created by the establishment of temporary fairgrounds in residential areas.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Noise and nuisance, whether at temporary fairgrounds or elsewhere, are subject to control by other legislation rather than by planning law.

Mr. Hunt: Is the Minister aware that a funfair recently descended upon a field in West Wickham in my constituency? In the event, the disturbance to local residents was rather less than had originally been anticipated. However, does this not indicate the need for much stricter planning control over intrusions of this kind into predominantly residential areas?

Mr. Barnett: Although I spent my earliest years in West Wickham, I am not aware of the fair that has settled in a residential area. I maintain, however, that it would be inappropriate to extend planning law to deal with the matter. Instead, local authorities should serve an order under the Control of Pollution Act


1974 to deal with noise and should use the Public Health Acts 1961 and 1936 to deal with the litter and health hazards. I believe that those powers are adequate.

Mr. Hal Miller: Does the Minister realise that the public need protection against the local authorities? In my constituency a fair has descended on us. It has been impossible to hold church services because of the noise from generators, and there is serious concern about the complete lack of toilet facilities.

Mr. Barnett: Clearly, residents who feel that they are affected in this way should first make representations to their local authorities to use the powers that I have described. Failing that, they have the right to go to local magistrates if they cannot agree with the local authority about existence of a statutory nuisance.

Inner Cities (Local Authority Partnerships)

Mr. Joseph Dean: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further progress has been made in concluding partnerships with local authorities with inner city problems other than those named in the announcement of 6th April.

Mr. Shore: Over 20 local authorities have approached me about partnership arrangements. My colleagues and I are considering their submissions and have seen representatives of many of the areas concerned. I hope to reach decisions in the next few weeks. As I have explained, the scope for further partnerships will be strictly limited.

Mr. Dean: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and the speed with which he has processed this matter, bearing in mind that the original statement was made only in April. May I urge him to treat this as a matter of utmost urgency, so that cities such as Leeds, if they are lucky in their applications, can get on with the work as quickly as possible?

Mr. Shore: I am conscious of the need for speed. We have received slightly more applications than I had expected, and this has meant a little delay. However, I intend to complete the processes of selection within the next few weeks.

Mr. Lawrence: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that these will be genuine partnerships and that the authorities will not be subject to dictation from central Government on matters that are of purely local concern?

Mr. Shore: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We do not intend to dictate. We intend to have genuine partnerships. Unless there is a real willingness to enter a partnership, the right psychological and planning support that is necessary to make the scheme a success will not be forthcoming.

Mr. Hardy: I welcome the progress that is being made in dealing with the grave problems of the inner city areas. However, will my right hon. Friend take care to ensure that similar problems that exist on a smaller scale in smaller towns of the older industrial areas of England are not ignored, to the grave disadvantage of the people who do not live in the cities?

Mr. Shore: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I do not intend to ignore the many small urban authorities which have these problems but which are not within the special category of partnership authorities. We shall do our best to assist them, too.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the recent debate he stated that his inner city partners would have to reallocate their resources? What exactly does he mean by reallocation? Will he say as clearly as possible what local authority services he expects will be reduced as a result of the reallocation of inner city programmes?

Mr. Shore: That is obviously a detailed matter for the local authorities themselves. We are saying to the local authorities, however, that, apart from the urban aid programme grants that we are giving, the Government are prepared to look at their main programmes of expenditure and to seek to give greater priority to those areas with the greatest needs and problems. We would expect local authorities to look at their total expenditure and at the possibility of giving extra assistance to those parts of their areas where the needs are greatest.

Residential Development (Planning Appeals)

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what general policy guidelines are given to planning appeal inspectors in connection with the need to give adequate regard to the effect that the granting of planning permission for residential development may have on local schools; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Guy Barnett: The only guidance given to inspectors on this matter draws their attention to the guidelines annexed to Circular 122/73, "Land Availability for Housing". The guidelines advised local authorities that when a decision on an application for planning permission for residential development turned on the availability of infrastructure, including schools, authorities should, in preference to a refusal on the ground that infrastructure was lacking, consider how and when the infrastructure might be provided.

Mr. Madel: Is the Minister aware that in counties such as Bedfordshire, where there has been continuous expensive London overspill for 20 years, the facilities for the population that was there before the overspill began have not kept pace? Since we are told that overspill is to end, a great catching-up operation is needed in those counties where most of the resources have gone on dealing with overspill. Will he bear this in mind in thinking about the rate support grant order for November, since the counties surrounding London have had this expensive overspill operation to contend with? Is he aware that, if planning inspectors are careless about the effect upon schools of allowing residential development, it could mean that the counties risk not satisfying the Department of Education and Science on the provision of adequate schooling?

Mr. Barnett: The principal grounds upon which a planning inspector needs to give a decision concern future land use. It may be right for the inspector in Bedfordshire or anywhere else to allow development to proceed and to expect improved or enlarged facilities, such as schools, to be provided for new residents. I well understand the sort of problems that arise in areas such as that of the hon. Gentleman, but inspectors must be left to consider the facts of individual

cases against the background of policy contained in development plans and circulars and in the light of all material considerations.

Mr. Molloy: Will my hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider providing guidelines for planning appeal inspectors so that they may have regard to the efforts and endeavours of local authorities that are trying to attract industry to their areas to alleviate growing unemployment? Is he aware that these efforts are being frustrated by some planning inspectors who are returning incredible decisions and who are allowing warehouses to be built on sites that should be reserved for industry? Is he aware that this blights the prospects for job creation schemes and is contrary to the advice given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment? Will my hon. Friend look at this problem, which is particularly serious in West London?

Mr. Barnett: I recognise the importance of this point. My hon. Friend may not be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently issued a circular—I believe it is Circular 71/77—which draws attention precisely to this point. Since it is a departmental circular, inspectors will consider it in making their decisions.

Construction Industry

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to meet representatives of the construction industry and allied professions, following their meeting with the Prime Minister and himself on 16th June at which it was agreed that further discussions should take place with himself; and what specific action has ensued since that meeting.

Mr. Shore: I met representatives of the construction industry on 22nd July. Further measures to assist the industry were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 15th July, and we shall continue to do all we can to help the industry.

Mr. Latham: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the findings of the builders' federation this week that 74 per cent. of construction firms are working at three-quarters capacity or less,


that the position is likely to continue for the rest of this year, and that the level of construction unemployment is quite outrageous?

Mr. Shore: I accept that the levels of unemployment are intolerably high. As for the other matters in the survey, I should obviously want to look at it in detail. However, the problems of the industry are very great. In the course of this year we have done our best to mitigate those problems. We have increased construction expenditure by about £230 million since the beginning of the year. I believe that while difficulties in this area are very grave there is some better prospect for next year.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Are not the restorations to which my right hon. Friend has just referred very small in comparison with the cuts? Does he agree that they go nowhere near restoring the situation? Will he therefore support the TUC, the Labour Party and one or two representatives of the construction industry and reverse the cuts, in view of the 1.6 million unemployed and the colossal tragedy of housing shortages?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend knows that all on the Government side of the House are in favour of restoring public expenditure levels as they affect the construction industry as soon as the financial and economic situation allows.

Mr. Tebbit: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the level of unemployment is intolerable, may we take it that he means that if it does not rapidly go down he will leave his office to show that he cannot tolerate it? Alternatively, will he tolerate it and stay in office?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) used the word "outrageous" and I agreed that the situation was intolerable. Unlike the Opposition, who are in favour of increasing public expenditure cuts, we are doing our utmost to help the construction industry in every way we can.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that none of these forward-looking reviews and in-depth studies will solve the problem? The Secretary of State cannot, like some of his colleagues on the Front Bench, blame the weather

and the Continentals. Does he agree that there is a simple equation? There are 800 million bricks, 250,000 construction workers on the dole, and thousands of homeless needing roofs. Any economist should be able to solve that equation.

Mr. Shore: I am always happy to have my own resolve fortified by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). What he leaves out of the equation, as he puts it, is the whole problem of public expenditure, with which we also have to deal.

Mr. Skinner: The IMF. The Common Market.

Mr. Costain: I do not wish to interrupt the private conversation between the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he could help overcome unemployment in the building industry if he were not so complacent about the supply of land? Does he agree that that would be the quickest way of helping unemployment and that it would not require any extra expenditure by the Government?

Mr. Shore: We have answered that question. We have examined the evidence and we are not aware that this is a serious problem at present. However, we shall continue to monitor the situation. Of course, we shall take what action we can should that apprehension show any signs of turning into reality.

HONOURABLE MEMBERS (SUPPLY OF PAPERS)

Speaker: Yesterday the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) raised the question of the provision of non-parliamentary papers from Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I have asked the Leader of the House and the Minister for the Civil Service to look into this as a matter of urgency. I shall communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that some of us are interested in this matter and intend to put in application forms for that document? May we have a further statement in the House before Friday asking the Leader of the House and the


Minister for the Civil Service to report to you in time for you to convey that information to the House?

Mr. Speaker: I shall see whether it is possible. I do not want to build the hon. Member's hopes too high.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (SECURITY)

Mr. Speaker: I wish to inform the House of decisions which have been taken following the consideration of a report about security in the Palace of Westminster made to me and to the Chairman of Committees in another place by the informal Joint Committee of both Houses held under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison).
The House will recall that Sir James Starritt, formerly Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, made a comprehensive report on security here in 1975, and a number of proposals he then made for improving physical security have since been carried into effect. He also recommended some major changes in the organisation of security arrangements.
In particular, he recommended the establishment of a combined security force for the whole Palace of Westminster under a single command, and the integration of the existing custodian force, at present employed by the Department of the Environment, into the Metropolitan Police organisation.
It was with this aspect of security that the Joint Committee has been concerned. Following its report and consideration by Ministers of the consequent financial arrangements, it is now proposed to go ahead with the implementation of these recommendations.
The aim is to set up a combined security force for the whole Palace of Westminster to raise the operational standards of the officers concerned, particularly by giving to the police responsibility for the recruitment and training of custodians and to improve co-ordination between the security staff within the Palace and the Metropolitan Police generally.
The necessary steps are accordingly now being taken by the Departments con-

cerned, in consultation with the police authorities and the staff directly affected, with a view to the new structure being operational by 1st October.
It has been agreed that expenditure on security within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster should in future be wholly borne on the Votes of the two Houses. This will involve the transfer of public expenditure at present being borne by the Department of the Environment and the Metropolitan Police. The additional public expenditure involved in these organisational changes will amount to about £100,000 a year.
I believe that these changes in our security arrangements will be to the advantage of Parliament and the personal safety of Members and staff of both Houses, and I am grateful to the Members of both Houses who served on this Joint Committee, and particularly to its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Wakefield.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you explain why in this instance it becomes your responsibility to read out a statement on such an important matter affecting many people working in and around Westminster? It seems to me that in these days of so-called open government it would have been better for a Minister, probably the Leader of the House, to present such a report.
Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst some members of the security forces and of the police about the shake-up and its starting on 1st October? Is there any way in which this matter could be investigated? Could it be put off so that representatives of the unions and other workers could make their opinions known more forcibly?

Mr. Hal Miller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the increased protection be extended to Old Palace Yard where there have been serious thefts over the last year from my hon. Friends, their secretaries and myself?

Mr. Molloy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I support the submission made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Would you be prepared to take into consideration that at least the staff associations which have members in the police


force and the entire Whitley system should be consulted before anything is decided?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. To what extent have the unions been consulted, particularly the existing security staff, who have done an excellent job? To what extent have hon. Members had an opportunity to express their opinion, particularly hon. Members who are members of a union? I find that almost invariably we in this House now appear to be treated ourselves and those who work in the House in a far worse fashion than people are treated in most factories and workshops and in industry generally. It is about time that we gave to our own staff in the House the same consideration as that which is given to people outside in other organisations.

Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I agree that the unions representing those who work in the Palace of Westminster should be adequately consulted. Will you inform the House as to whom this new joint body is to be responsible and answerable? Is it to be answerable to the House, through you, and to the other place, through the Chairman of Committees, or is it to he answerable elsewhere? In a matter of this nature, it is important that the control of what goes on in this building should rest with those who work here.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: As a former member of the Services Committee, may I say that I fully support the statement you have made. Mr. Speaker? It is right that you, as Mr. Speaker, should make the statement. I hope very much that there will be no question of anyone other than you being answerable for security matters. It would be utterly foolish if we were to start having ill-informed debates on security matters affecting the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to all the hon. Members who have raised this point. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) has underlined the fact that for as long as we can recall Mr. Speaker has been answerable to the House on this question. That is the way in which we have worked. Security is not a subject that is generally debated.
I assure hon. Members that I am informed that the Departments have been having detailed discussions with the unions concerned and with all the staff. In fact, the discussions had been going on for over a year before we reached this position about which I have spoken to the House.
The joint body will be answerable to me, and through me, therefore, to the House.

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR VAUXHALL (EARLY-DAY MOTION)

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point is on an entirely different matter. I apologise in advance if I in any way embarrass you. However, I am bewildered, because on the Order Paper today there is a motion that expresses the view of a number of right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition who say that they have no confidence in the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss).

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. William Hamilton: It is squalid rubbish.

Mr. Mellish: I am assuming that this motion arises from the fact that the Father of the House had put down an amendment to the important motions that were debated yesterday. Frankly, I would not support that amendment but, having said that, I would be the first to support my right hon. Friend's democratic right to table any amendment that he wished to table. In your view, Mr. Speaker, the amendment was in order, and you allowed a vote and some hon. Members supported it. I am not asking for any particular ruling. I am not sure whether you have any rights about what motions are put down. However, it is a sad day when an hon. Member exercises his democratic rights in that fashion and then such a motion appears on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: I allowed latitude on the point of order.
Perhaps I may tell the House—I might as well get this on the record now—that I have told some of the authorities in the House that if ever the occasion arises


when a reprimand has to be administered by the Speaker on behalf of the House, I never intend to put that black hat on my head.

MR. HUGH STEWART

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the case of Mr. Hugh Stewart, who is serving a sentence of nine years' imprisonment for a robbery which I have very good reason to believe that he did not commit.
I shall also refer to the refusal of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to refer his case to the Court of Appeal under Section 17 of the Criminal Appeals Act.
This is a case of a man who has protested his innocence throughout. There were no verbal admissions and there is no objective evidence against him. He was convicted solely on identification evidence, which was extremely weak, confused and contradictory, and which would certainly not be admissible under the rules in the Devlin Committee recommendations and the rule in the case of Turnbull and others.
The case was heard before the Devlin Committee on identification evidence. In the light of that Committee's report and the ruling of the Court of Appeal in the case of Turnbull and others last summer, it is my view that if the case were referred to the Court of Appeal by my right hon. Friend, it is virtually certain that Mr. Stewart's conviction would be quashed.
But there are additional and fairly dramatic reasons for believing in Mr. Stewart's innocence. I have been investigating this case over a long period. I have been able to obtain a statement from one of his co-defendants at the trial, who had pleaded not guilty but who had been convicted and who now admits his guilt but wholly exonerates Mr. Stewart. However, much more important is the fact that I have also been able to interview another man. 1 shall not name him. He has convictions, but this robbery is not one of them. He has given to me a detailed account of the planning and

execution of this robbery and he has named to me the man who had taken the part for which Mr. Stewart was convicted. He agreed to my passing this information to the Home Secretary, and I have done so. Understandably, the man concerned imposed, as a condition of giving me this statement, other conditions of secrecy, which of course I intend to respect.
I have been a practising lawyer for over 20 years in a mixed criminal and litigation practice. I have a great deal of experience in interviewing witnesses. Although I have sometimes been misled, I am absolutely certain that in this case, that man's statement, in which he exonerates Hugh Stewart, was the truth.
I fully accept that that evidence could not be admissible in the Court of Appeal. I have not suggested to my right hon. Friend that it should be admissible, but I am suggesting that it is a ground upon which he could refer the case to the Court of Appeal, because the evidence on which Mr. Stewart was originally convicted was so weak and so in conflict with the rules laid down in Turnbull and others that the conviction could be quashed.
My right hon. Friend has said that he is not proposing to apply the rules in Turnbull and others retrospectively, but it seems to me to conflict with the principles of natural justice that a man who was convicted on evidence which would not now be admissible should be left in prison because the Home Secretary is not prepared to apply retrospectively rules which we now accept, even though we have strong new grounds for believing in this man's innocence.
Old injustices are no less injustices for the fact that they took place some years ago.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) gave me notice this morning that he intended to raise this matter, and he sent me details of the case that he believes should be given precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I have listened carefully to the hon. Member. He wishes to raise
the case of Mr. Hugh Stewart, who is serving a sentence of nine years' imprisonment for a robbery which the hon. Member has very good


reason to believe that Mr. Stewart did not commit
As the House knows, I have to take into account all the relevant factors. I am not called upon to give the reasons for my decision to the House. I am afraid that I cannot grant the hon. Member's application.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 3, Mr. Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the draft Counter-Inflation (Continuation of Enactments) Order 1977 at One o'clock or three hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, and that Mr. Speaker shall then put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the Motions relating to the draft Limits on Remuneration Order 1977 and the draft Price Investigation and Examination (Exceptions) Order 1977 as soon as they have been entered upon.—[Mr. Bates.]

RENT ACTS (AMENDMENT)

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Rent Acts.
The Bill would amend the Rent Acts in so far as the county court now alone has the power to question the nature of a disputed tenancy of a residential property. This problem came to my mind as a result of a surgery that I was holding in my constituency. A young couple came to see me about the possibility of obtaining a council house. As is customary on these occasions, I explained that the allocation of council tenancies was a matter for the Hull District Council and not a matter in which I could directly intervene. However, I took down the particulars.
When I noted the address at which the couple were then living—12 Morpeth Street—I became interested. I asked what rent they were paying and was told that it was £12.50p plus rates. I was astounded. The house is in the centre of my constituency in an area which is going through the usual inner city problems. I understand from the Environmental Health Officer in Hull that as late as May there were still a number of items of disrepair outstanding for which an informal notice has been issued.
The reason why my constituents were prepared to pay such an extremely high rent was that they were desperate for housing. They informed me that they were advised by the landlord that if the wife applied for a mail order catalogue, the tenancy would then be a business tenancy because the wife would be operating a business from the property.
I thought that this was a load of nonsense and that it was a clear attempt to evade the provisions of the Rent Acts, which seek to protect tenants. My constituents did not know whether planning permission had ever been sought by the landlord to change the residential property to business premises. I therefore sent them to the rent officer. I wrote to


him and received a reply which reads as follows:
Hopper and Levy
12 Morpeth Street
The above address has been let before Mr. Hopper's time
—Mr. Hopper is my constituent—
by the Landlord on the basis, that if the wife takes up a weekly-payment catalogue-agency then these are business premises. The prospective tenant is induced to sign a lease to the effect that he is renting business premises. As such they are outside the purview of the Rent Officer Service.
This was explained to Mr. Hopper, on his visit here, on the 23rd March"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he ought to outline what Bill he is proposing to bring before the House and not use the procedure as an Adjournment debate to argue his constituent's case.

Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing my constituent's case.
I have been speaking for three minutes outlining the circumstances which have led me to seek a change in the Rent Act. Unless I explain the circumstances, the provision that I am seeking to have altered does not have a great deal of relevance. I am seeking to explain the circumstances of a constituent who finds that her position cannot be rectified by the normal methods of the Rent Acts but that it can be altered by the creation of a false business tenancy. I am seeking to amend the Rent Acts so that the rent officer can adjudicate—that was the point that I was making—and then have an appeal on the disputed tenancy arrangement to the county court instead of the rent officer not having jurisdiction.
It is important that the House should understand through a particular constituency case the circumstances in which this matter arises. I am sorry if you, Mr. Speaker, feel that I am initiating an Adjournment debate, because I understand that an Adjournment debate cannot deal with legislation. Indeed, I am referring not to a particular constituency case as such but merely to the principle involved in seeking to alter the legislation. I should like your guidance on the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I should like the hon. Gentleman to do us all a favour and tell

us what is in his Ten-Minute Rule Bill, because his time is running out.

Mr. McNamara: What I want to do is get a situation in which the rent officer has jurisdiction, which he does not have at present, with regard to a disputed tenancy where unscrupulous landlords are seeking to evade the provisions of the Rent Act.
In the case that I have cited, that of creating a false business tenancy, this is a problem which is at present outside the rent officer's jurisdiction. The only solution that a constituent has is to go to the Court.
The purpose of my Bill is to get away from the situation where a landlord can, for example, say that if a person brews home beer on the premises, it is a brewery, or that if he repairs his motor cycle, it is a garage and, therefore, a business tenancy. I want to get to a situation in which the Act is not bypassed by an unscrupulous landlord and in which the rent officer can decide what should be a fair rent, assuming that it is a residential property. If a party feels aggrieved, in this case the landlord, he should be able to go to the county court.
I understand that I started speaking at 3.49 p.m., which means that I still have four minutes to go in order to go through the various problems associated with this matter.
I have correspondence from the rent officer showing that this can be dealt with through proper zoning by a local authority. All of us know, as I am sure you do, Mr. Speaker, from the inner city part of your constituency, of the problems that affect run-down areas of cities as a result of trying to enforce planning measures. I wanted to quote a letter from the landlord in which he advised my tenant to apply for planning permission when, in fact, I understand from the situation that the three companies involved—Pethro Properties, Humberside Properties and J and G Properties—all decided a year ago, as a matter of policy, that all residential property should be changed to business tenancies or pseudo-business tenancies when planning permission had not been sought.
They were working in a situation in which they knew that tenants who were desperate for housing would not know their way round the law and would not go


to the county court but would, for a certain time, take this property at a high rent and then flit elsewhere. That is the sort of problem that worries the landlord. Quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to understand why you sought to interrupt me in seeking to give the circumstances in order to explain the change in the law which is the purpose of my Bill.

Mr. Patrick Wall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman appears to be accusing a constituent of mine of irregular, if not illegal behaviour. Is that in order on a Ten-Minute Rule Bill?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the longest way round is the shortest way home.

Mr. McNamara: I am not accusing a person of doing anything at all illegal. I am saying that he is, in fact, abusing the spirit of the Act and carrying on in a way deliberately intended to evade the Act. That is what he is doing. I am seeking to make sure that a constituent who lives in salubrious Kirkella and not in the middle of Morpeth Street should be guided by the purposes of the Act as was originally intended.
I hope that the Minister for Housing and Construction will take this very much on board, because if tomorrow—if I get the motion through the House now—I do not have time to have a Second Reading, it is important that the matter should be taken on board by the Government.
Since I was stopped in the flow of my oratory I have been prevented from demonstrating the importance of this matter by correspondence that I have had from the landlord to whom I wrote to make sure that I knew exactly what his side of the case was. I intended to be fair. I like to believe that I am fair. But that has not been possible because of interruptions.

4 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: Mr. John Wells(Maidstone)rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) wish to oppose the application of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara)?

Mr. Wells: I do, Mr. Speaker, but I shall be very brief.
It is very distasteful in the month of July and even in the latter part of the month of June to have offered to the House Ten-Minute Bills dealing with specific cases which seek to raise the hopes of innocent people such as the constituent of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). Had the hon. Gentleman been dealing with broad generalities throughout his speech, one could have said that the Government should take on board those broad generalities and that they might have incorporated the broad concept of them in a Queen's Speech later in the autumn.
The fact that the House will be rising the day after tomorrow means, as the hon. Gentleman confessed, that his Bill has no prospect of becoming law. Therefore, he can be seeking leave to introduce it only for one of two reasons. The first is his own personal publicity. I know that he would not dream of doing that. At this time of the year in the past, it has been done frequently by the Liberal Party. But I exonerate the hon. Gentleman from that.
The hon. Gentleman's second reason for introducing his Bill may be to raise the hopes of constituents and innocent people throughout the country. It is that of which I accuse him.

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Wells: No. I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. He has had his say.
With the best will in the world, I believe that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise false hopes. Therefore, as his Bill has no prospect of becoming law, I believe that it should not be allowed to proceed.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees

at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 155.

DIVISION NO 222]
AYES
[4.01 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Golding, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Anderson, Donald
Gould, Bryan
Ovenden, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Gourlay, Harry
Padley, Walter


Ashley, Jack
Graham, Ted
Palmer, Arthur


Ashton, Joe
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Pardoe, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Parry, Robert


Atkinson, Norman
Grocott, Bruce
Pavitt, Laurie


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Penhaligon, David


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hardy, Peter
Perry, Ernest


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Harper, Joseph
Phipps, Dr Colin


Bates, Alt
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Prescott, John


Beith, A. J.
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hatton, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Horam, John
Robinson, Geoffrey


Bradley, Tom
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Huckfield, Les
Rooker, J. W.


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Roper, John


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rose, Paul B.


Buchanan, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Butler Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ryman, John


Campbell, Ian
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Sandelson, Neville


Canavan, Dennis
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Sedgemore, Brian


Cant, R. B.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Carter, Ray
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Judd, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Cartwright, John
Kaufman, Gerald
Small, William


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Kelly, Richard
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Clemitson, Ivor
Kerr, Russell
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Snape, Peter


Cohen, Stanley
Kinnock, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Coleman, Donald
Lamble, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Conlan, Bernard
Lamond, James
Stallard, A. W.


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Corbett, Robin
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cowans, Harry
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Stoddart, David


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strang, Gavin


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Litterick, Tom
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Crawshaw, Richard
Loyden, Eddie
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Cronin, John
Luard, Evan
Swain, Thomas


Cunningham, Dr J.(Whiteh)
McDonald, Dr Oonagn
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Davidson, Arthur
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thorne Stan (Preston South)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thorne, Stan Hon Jeremy(N Devon)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Maclennan, Robert
Thorpe Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Deakins, Eric
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tierney, Sydney


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McNamara, Kevin
Tinn, James


Dempsey, James
Madden, Max
Torney, Tom


Dormand, J, D.
Magee, Bryan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mahon, Simon 
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Dunnett, Jack
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Ward, Michael


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, David


Eadie, Alex
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Weitzman, David


Edge, Geoff
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wellbeloved, James


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
While, Frank R. (Bury)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
While, James (Pollok)


English, Michael
Mendelson, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Ennals, David
Mikardo, Ian
Whitlock, William


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Evans, John (Newton)
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Faulds, Andrew
Molloy, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Moonman, Eric
Woodall, Alec


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Woof, Robert


Forrester, John
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Fraser, John
Newens, Stanley
Young, David (Bolton E)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Noble, Mike



Freud, Clement
Oakes, Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
O'Halloran, Michael
Mr. Martin Flannery and


Ginsburg, David
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. Terry Walker.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Onslow, Cranley


Aitken, Jonathan
Haselhurst, Alan
Osborn, John


Alison, Michael
Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow West)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Banks, Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, Richard (Workington)


Benyon, W.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Parkinson, Cecil


Biggs-Davison, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Blaker, Peter
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hurd, Douglas
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
James, David
Prior, Rt Hon James


Braine, Sir Bernard
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Jessel, Toby
Raison, Timothy


Brooke, Peter
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rathbone, Tim


Brotherton, Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Kershaw, Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bulmer, Esmond
Kilfedder, James
Ridsdale, Julian


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Carlisle, Mark
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Knox, David
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sainsbury, Tim


Cockcroft, John
Lawrence, Ivan
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lawson, Nigel
Scott, Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Crouch, David
Lloyd, Ian
Shepherd, Colin


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sims, Roger


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Drayson, Burnaby
Macfarlane, Neil
Speed, Keith


Durant, Tony
MacGregor, John
Spence, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Elliott, Sir William
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fairgrieve, Russell
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stainton, Keith


Farr, John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Marten, Neil
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mates, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mather, Carol
Stradling Thomas, J.


Forman, Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Fry, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D.


Glyn, Dr Alan
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Tuck, Raphael


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mills, Peter
Viggers, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wakeham, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Moate, Roger
Wall, Patrick


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Molyneaux, James
Walters, Dennis


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Weatherill. Bernard


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Gray, Hamish
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wiggin, Jerry


Griffiths, Eldon
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Winterton, Nicholas


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mudd, David
Younger, Hon George


Grist, Ian
Nelson, Anthony



Grylls, Michael
Neubert, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Newton, Tony
Mr. Norman Tebbit and


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Normanton, Tom
Mr. John Wells.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. James Johnson, Mr. John Prescott, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Bruce Grocott, Mr. Robin Corbett, and Dr. Edmund Marshall.

RENT ACTS (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Kevin McNamara accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Rent Acts; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 182.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (RESTORATION OF WORKS POWERS) BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Orders of the Day — Clause 1

RESTORATION OF POWERS CONFERRED BY CERTAIN ORDERS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 6, at end insert
which are specified in the Schedule to this Act and

Mr. Speaker: With this may we take Lords Amendment No. 7.

4.10 p.m.

The Minister fox Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Michael Morris: We very much welcome the Government's acceptance of the amendment. This is a short Bill, but even with only two clauses it is very comprehensive. I think that when my noble Friend Lord Sandys moved the amendment he did so in recognition of the criticisms of the Renton Committee. At long last somebody is acting on criticisms made by a Committee of this House. I am glad that the Government are acquiescing in this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — align="center">New Clause A

PROVISIONS CONCERNING EXERCISE OF POWERS

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 1, line 21, at end insert new Clause A—
A. The parties to an agreement or intended agreement whereby any building or work (in this Act called a "relevant work") is to be constructed by a district council (in this Act called a "contracting council") under an agreement made by virtue of section 1 above shall comply with sections (Obligation to put work out to tender) (Form of Contract) and (Separate accounting) cf this Act.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8.

Mr. Freeson: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The new clauses proposed in Lords Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 are substantially the same as those put forward by Opposition hon. Members during our Committee stage. We successfully resisted them then, and I see no greater merit in them now. No doubt their Lordships voted for the amendments in the hope that they would prove acceptable, but, as I shall show, they are not. I appreciate their Lordships' reasoning, as I did that of hon. Members in Committee. But it is still my opinion that the Bill is not the proper vehicle for the inclusion of the clauses.
I hope that we have established during our discussions on the Bill that the Government are just as anxious as any right hon. or hon. Member to see that local authority direct labour organisations should follow procedures which enable their efficiency and true value to their ratepayers to be adequately and clearly compared with those of private contractors. That was the purpose of my setting up a working party not long after taking up my present post, and was the purpose of the original legislative proposals that I indicated we wished to introduce some time ago.
Since it appears to be only Labour Governments who have taken any major initiatives to this end since the Second World War, some might think that we have demonstrated our concern more practically than have Conservative hon. Members. It would, therefore, be wrong to suppose that our opposition to the amendments springs from any reluctance to put local authority DLOs on as equal terms as possible with private contractors. I have said often—I am sure that some Conservative hon. Members must have noticed that—that it is, and has been all along, my intention to introduce to the House a fully comprehensive measure on DLO activities.
Our opposition to the new clauses arises not from lack of sympathy with their intentions but from the inappropriateness of their insertion in this Bill and from their drafting weaknesses. I reiterate that this measure deals with powers which give rise to only a very small part of the total DLO work of a very small proportion of all local authorities. The additional provisions contained


in the amendments can apply only to that very tiny fraction of local authority DLO work. They will not apply at all to most local authorities, and will apply only to work done under the provisions of the Bill in the 25 local authorities to which it does apply.
4.15 p.m.
That would be so anomalous that I ask hon. Members to reject the amendments on that ground alone. The inclusion of ill-thought out and piecemeal provisions is not the way to provide a sound financial basis for the operation of DLO activities. I am sorry to have to say that the amendments are ill thought out. I realise that I may be told that they are essentially what I described in the debate on Second Reading as being in the Government's mind for eventual comprehensive legislation. Conservative hon. Members should realise that a brief exposition in general terms during a speech to the House is not—especially when wrenched from its full context and given a very different application—in an appropriate form for transposition into legislation.
I should perhaps explain some of the shortcomings of the clauses. Some hon. Members will have heard something similar before. It is not a case of "What I say three times is true". There are real objections to use of the words and format chosen. We should not, as parliamentarians, put local authorities—or, it may be, the courts—into the position of having to try to make sense of legislation because we here have not done our job properly.
Clause A merely introduces and requires compliance with Clauses B, D and E. It has no other substantive purpose. In our view such a clause should not be necessary. The clauses to which it refers should, if they were acceptable at all, be so drafted as to enable each to stand on its own.
Clause B is defective in principle because it seeks to control the actions not of the 25 authorities named in the Bill but of their potential clients. While not a conclusive objection, this is indicative of the general laxity of approach in the amendments. More seriously, the clause is nonsensical. It puts the cart before the horse. Until a client authority has received tenders or attempted to negotiate

a price, it will not know whether it desires to have work done by a DLO or by a private contractor. At the time when the clause requires it to go to competitive tender, it will not know who will gain the contract. The indexation of the cost limits specified in paragraph (2) is so poorly expressed as to be meaningless.
Even taking the intention of the clause and ignoring its technical faults, it is unreasonable. It makes no allowance for serial or continuation contracts. I know that there are some Conservative hon. Members who do not like that at all, but many people in this field prefer them as being conducive to greater efficiency. Such contracts are frequently negotiated with contractors throughout the industry for sums greatly exceeding £50,000. There is no equitable reason why the DLOs of the 25 authorities should not be treated the same. The House will recall that the restriction would apply only to work done under the Bill, so again, we have even more nonsense as between different kinds of contracts undertaken by local authorities.
Clause C is defective because it enshrines a basic misconception which runs throughout the group of clauses. This is that an authority's direct labour organisation can suffer a loss when doing work for another. Such an authority, as I have pointed out many times, has no power to charge a client authority other than full actual costs. So no question of loss to the contracting DLO authority can arise. Nor, of course, can it make a profit. This applies equally to work done by a DLO for its own authority.
The clause is closely linked with the system of accounting proposed in Clause E. But that clause does not provide a proper basis for the keeping of accounts. I shall explain the reasons for that in a moment. But Clause C also provides that the sanction which it embodies may be exercised on the basis of a DLO's performance on work not authorised by this Bill.
Until there are satisfactory and comprehensive charging and accounting arrangements for all DLO work, the performance of a DLO cannot be properly judged. There can, therefore, be no proper and equitable basis for considering the form of a sanction in the case


of a DLO which does not perform effectively. If these clauses introduced into the Bill by amendments in another place were adequate and acceptable, Clause C would be misplaced. It should surely come after the Clause E. But this is just another instance of confusion by the sponsors of the amendments.
As in the previous Clause C, Clause D cannot be accepted for the overriding reason that a DLO authority under the present law may charge a client authority only actual costs. The amendment does not alter that situation. So the use of contract forms providing for a contract-based charge would be inappropriate. Even if contract charging were possible for DLOs, the clause would still be too rigid to be acceptable. There can be perfectly valid and justified reasons for client and contractor to agree variations of standard forms of contract, or even a special one-off form to meet a particular situation. There is no reason why a DLO should be debarred from such arrangements, any more than private contractors are.
Clause E also suffers from the misunderstanding about the possibility of a DLO making losses—or profits. It cannot. In our view, nothing in this clause, or any of the other amendments, is adequate to change that situation. Our proposed comprehensive legislation would have enabled firm prices to be charged. Until such a power is available a DLO must charge its costs.
Consequently the duty which subsection (4) of this clause seeks to impose is redundant. On the other hand, if the power to charge firm prices were available, the requirement would be too stringent. A DLO's financial objective, which I still want to write into legislation, like that of private contractors, should relate to overall viability over a period. To require them never to make a loss on any job would impose upon DLOs a stricter r égime than. the private sector.
Again, subsection (2) of the clause refers to proper charges for a list of items. But it gives no clear indication of the way in which they are to be assessed. And the requirements for inclusion of the specified account to which the clause relates, in the contracting authority's accounts nine months or more after final certificate for the work, is unrealistic.

How should expenditure be accounted for when it is incurred, or income from the work when it is received?
I am sorry to have dwelt at such length on the technical shortcomings of these clauses, and the objections to applying new provisions to such a small segment of local authority work. I have been trying to convince right hon. and hon. Members opposite, as I tried to do in Committee and on Second Reading, that there are good and sufficient reasons for keeping the Bill as short and simple as possible. I hope that I have made it clear that Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 would be of such limited application and doubtful force that they should be rejected.

Mr. Michael Latham: The Minister has said several times that he has in mind a comprehensive Bill to deal with the problem. Will he confirm that that comprehensive Bill would have clauses in it which were not acceptable to the Liberal Party and therefore could not be introduced, that it would not pass in this Parliament, and that nothing will be done before the General Election?

Mr. Freeson: The Opposition also were opposed, mistakenly, to our introducing such legislation. They have lost the opportunity of supporting a major move forward in the reform of DLOs, but that is their responsibility, not mine. However, even if all that the hon. Member has said were true in the form in which he said it—and it was not, because it was a generalization—it would not be possible to introduce the legislation which we had in mind.
I have referred before to the work being done on DLO procedures by my departmental working party and by CIPFA. I hope to have reports covering new works by DLOs this autumn, and repair and maintenance works by early next year. I undertook during the Committee stage of this Bill to continue and extend my discussions and dialogue with all interested parties on the comprehensive legislation we intend. I repeat that assurance now.
Indeed, I will go futher and say that when I have received and considered the reports which I have just mentioned, I shall publish a consultation document. In it I shall set out as fully as possible


the Government's views on what should be done to provide a modern statutory framework for the operation of local authority DLOs. At the same time, I shall consider what advice and guidance might usefully be given, perhaps by circular, to local authorities to encourage all of them to achieve the highest possible standards of efficiency in their DLOs under the present law.
I look to the earliest possible publication of my consultation document and circular, to be backed up by subsequent legislation. On the latter point, I am entirely in the hands of right hon. and hon. Members. I share hon. Member's proper concern that DLOs should promptly put their accountancy procedures in order. I shall certainly waste no time in helping to bring that about. Indeed, some are already doing so, as I notice from reports coming through local town hall channels.
Meanwhile, however, the inclusion of ill-thought-out and piecemeal provisions is not the way to provide a sound basis for the operation of DLO activities. What is needed is comprehensive legislation relating to the scope and activities of DLOs generally, enabling appropriate arrangements to be made as regards charging, accounting and tendering, which inevitably are inter-linked. This is what the Government still wish to provide, and in due time we shall place such comprehensive legislation before the House.

Mr. Keith Speed: I thank the Minister for what he said latterly in his remarks. We welcome it. It was the Opposition which put forward the suggestion in Committee in order to be helpful. I am glad that the Minister has responded in a positive and helpful way in respect of the consultation document, which all hon. Members will wish to discuss and on which they will wish to make representations to the Minister and his Department. I am sure that the building industry, the building associations and the trade unions will wish to make their representations, to say nothing of the local authorities. At least something positive has emerged from the Bill, which we on this side of the House have never liked.
I am extremely disappointed that the Minister cannot accept the amendments.
He has reminded us of various circulars and actions by former Labour Ministers in connection with DLOs, but, curiously, he always leaves out Circular 50/65 by the late Richard Crossman, which abolished the need for competitive tendering by DLOs. I am sure that the Minister would not wish the record to be incomplete as a result of that not being pointed out.
The history of the amendments is of interest. There was a tied vote in Committee when they were discussed. Not only the Conservative Party, but the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), who represented the Welsh National Parliamentary Party, voted for amendments which sought to do what these amendments do. The Government won only on the casting vote of the Chairman.
When one considers the debate in another place, the substantial majority and the way in which the debate went, with not only Conservative peers but independent and official Liberal peers and such characters as the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown voting for the amendments, one realises that there was a considerable weight of expertise and experience behind them. After my noble Friend Baroness Young had spoken to the amendments, the Minister said—and I do not blame him for saying it—that they were deficient and that they were not drafted properly. My noble Friend said that if the Government wished to take the amendments away and bring them back on Report Stage in the Lords in better order, the Opposition would be very happy. I say the same thing to the Minister today. The House returns 13 weeks today—on 26th October—so that gives the Minister 13 weeks in which to knock these amendments into some kind of order. As a draft Bill is sitting in Marsham Street, it should not be too difficult for him to knock the amendments into shape if the House agrees with the Lords today.
4.30 p.m.
My understanding is that the South Glamorgan Act and the Tyne and Wear Act include a CIPFA recommendation as part of the accountancy procedures for the DLOs of these authorities. Apparently that was not inappropriate at the time and has been working well.
Since we had the debates upstairs in Committee my attention has been drawn to just three of the local authorities concerned in this Bill. The Sunderland Borough Council Works Department has now put up £100,000 the value of work that does not need to be put out to competitive tender in the future. The present limit is £50,000. I am sure that the Minister is not happy about that, and certainly I am not.
Secondly, the Newcastle-on-Tyne City Council has awarded its direct labour organisation a housing scheme worth £406,000, out of which £215,000 is a subsidy from the Minister's Department. The third case is that of South Tyneside, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) referred during Question Time. He was absolutely correct about it. I have a letter here from a member of that council telling me that 12 contracts for the modernisation of houses amounting to £3-7 million, two for new houses amounting to £460,000 and four contracts for road sewers amounting to £540,000 have gone out without competitive tenders. The council is now in a terrible muddle, is shedding staff and making considerable losses on the contracts. These are just three of the local authorities mentioned in the Bill. Something should be done to protect the ratepayers in those areas.
What will the future legislation consist of? My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) asked a relevant question and the Minister's answer did not advance our knowledge very much. As I understand it, the Government sincerely believe that there should be a fairly considerable extension of direct labour and that there should be the accounting procedures that we are discussing now. The Government also believe that these two aspects should go together and they are not prepared to introduce legislation on one without the other.
The position of my party—and of the Liberal Party as well, so I believe—is that we want proper accounting procedures as soon as possible but we, together with the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils, do not want any extension of direct labour.
It is quite clear that there can be no prospect of legislation while the present

Government are in power and the present parliamentary situation exists. There is no prospect of having the comprehensive legislation to which the Minister referred before the next General Election. While I believe that the next election will come quickly, it is possible that it might not occur before November 1979. That would mean that there would be no legislation before 1980. Unless we can get something done in this Bill to a limited extent there is no prospect of legislation to deal with the problem for possibly three years or more.
One would hope that at the next election there would be a clear majority for one party or another. If we were returned to power we would introduce legislation for accounting but certainly not for the extension of direct labour. It is extremely important that the House should agree with the Lords in these amendments today, even on a narrow basis, thus enabling these authorities to have some form of CIPFA recommendations introduced into their procedures. That would put them on all fours with South Glamorgan and Tyne and Wear.
From the three examples that I mentioned earlier it is quite clear that there are local authorities among the 25 which need to have brought home to them the gravity of the situation and the fact that we believe in competition. The fact that one authority has raised the limit from £50,000 to £100,000 on the value of work that need not go out to tender demonstrates that it is acting against the spirit of what we all want to see. I am sure that the Liberals, who supported the amendments in another place, are not prepared to wait until 1980 to see legislation introduced to take action on these matters. I must advise the House to agree with the Lords' amendments.

Mr. Graham Page: The Minister has resisted these amendments on two grounds—that they are inappropriate for this Bill and that they are weak in their drafting and technically deficient.
As I understand it the Government's intention, if they remain in office long enough, is to bring in a comprehensive Bill on direct labour organisations. Indeed, the Minister confirmed this earlier this afternoon during Question Time. The intention of that Bill will be to extend


the powers of the DLOs of local authorities to enable them to carry out work outside their own areas. That is what this Bill does in confirming orders which give certain local authorities—25 of them—exactly that power. Therefore this Bill is in miniature the comprehensive Bill about which the Minister has spoken.
I understand that the Minister agrees with the spirit of these amendments and that he would do something along these lines in his comprehensive Bill. The amendments contain the rules of condduct that one would hope any efficient local authority and its direct labour organisation would apply in carrying out direct labour work. Therefore the Minister's argument about the inappropriateness of the Bill falls to the ground. The comprehensive Bill that he hopes to introduce will include some provisions of this sort—certainly provisions on competitive tenders and accountancy.
On the matter of drafting weaknesses. I have a feeling that the Minister is delighted to be able to make this point. Any Minister who is resisting amendments sees this as an easy way out, especially if he can have the backing of the parliamentary draftsmen who say that the amendments are deficient in some way. But the Minister has known of these amendments long enough, and if he agrees with the spirit of them it would be simple enough for him to get them put right by the parliamentary draftsmen.
I would not think that the Minister would object to some provision about competitive tender. He has said that his Government have done a lot to make direct labour organisations efficient. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) pointed out, it was his predecessor, the late Mr. Richard Crossman, who removed the need for local authorities to be competitive. That provision was inserted by a Conservative Government.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is it not also the case that as a result of the Crossman circular there were many scandals and another Minister, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, had to produce the manual of principles?

Mr. Page: I was trying not to be too controversial. To a great extent we are in agreement. I understand that the

Minister agrees with what is in the Lords amendments and certainly with their spirit. I do not know about the details of the form of contract in Lords Amendment No. 5. Personally, I think that it could be left to regulations and to order-making powers. Any Bill on direct labour should include provisions for proper accountancy and those are set out in Amendment No. 6.
If the amendments are weak in drafting and if there are technical deficiencies, the Government have plenty of time to put the matter right before the Bill becomes law. The Minister would have engendered a great deal of good will if he had been prepared to include some at least of these amendments in the Bill as a pilot scheme. Since this is a mini-Bill of the Bill he intends to bring in, he could have gained good will by letting the public see what he wants from direct labour organisations by inserting such provisions about competitive tendering and accounting. He could have done that without losing the policy he so treasures on direct labour organisations.
We accept that the Bill has got to this stage, but we are asking for the Minister to use it only as a pilot Bill if he wishes to bring in a later Bill. We hope that he will include these amendments, which will be helpful to direct labour organisations that wish to work on a competitive basis.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: I should remind the House that I am interested in this industry through the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, for whom I work. However, I do not think that that is particularly germane to what I am about to say.
The Minister made much play of the defects in the amendments, and he is entitled to do so. It is refreshing for a Minister to be able to poke fun at somebody else's drafting as opposed to the more normal arrangement when the Opposition poke fun at the drafting of the parliamentary draftsmen. I think we are reasonably square on that account and that we sould not worry too much about the situation.
The Minister no doubt read the report of proceedings in the other place. He will know that my noble Friend Baroness Young said on 19th July that she was prepared to withdraw the amendments if


the Government would bring them back correctly drafted in the spirit of what the Opposition there wanted and, indeed, what the Government and the Liberals wanted. I am not sure about the Liberals and I would not wish to speak for them. It is difficult to speak for the Liberals without getting into some difficulty in view of the split which appears to exist between the Liberals in the House of Lords and those who sit in this place.
The arguments put in the other place were precisely the same as those put here on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading. Unfortunately, we were unable to persuade Liberal Members in this House that our arguments were correct. However, time is a great healer and after a suitable interval for consideration the Liberals have got together somewhere in the Central Lobby, where I understand that there is adequate room for them to do so and, indeed, on neutral ground.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Thank God there are only two days left.

Mr. Tebbit: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman says that, if he and his party have got into this kind of muddle with their friends at the other end of the corridor.
It appears either that the Liberals in this House have had second thoughts or that their friends at the other end of the corridor, perhaps with greater wisdom, have concluded that what was said in this House at an earlier stage was correct. I understand that in the other place the Liberals voted officially—indeed, they may have been whipped to do so—in support of these amendments. It would help the House enormously if we could know what the Liberals were going to do on this occasion. Their example could help others to make up their minds. There are other minority parties whose Members might be looking to the Liberals for a lead. It would be confusing for anyone who followed the lead of the Liberal peers in the belief that he was also following the Liberals in this place, only to find out that that was not the case.
I hope that in this brief debate we shall not be left in any doubt about the attitude of the Liberals in this House. Everybody wants to know the situation before the vote is taken. We should like to know

whether the Liberals here have split with their colleagues in the other place or are split only among themselves.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Stan Crowther: I know that it is the intention of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to take the mickey out of the Liberals. Indeed, that is the only contribution he has made to the debate. I did not intend to take part in this discussion, but I wish to rebut the allegation that the Bill will allow 25 named local authorities to undertake work outside their own areas. That is not the case. It allows them to carry out work only in the area of a former borough, but not outside that area. There is no way in which they can undertake work outside that area. This is a fiction which has been advanced by the Opposition. It was put forward in Committee, and I thought that we had dealt with the situation there. The argument has been advanced again today and it needs to be rebutted.
This is an extremely modest Bill. It allows the authorities concerned to undertake the work which they were carrying out before. It was unfortunate, owing to an administrative failure, that there was a gap for a few months in which authorities were unable to carry out the work in county council areas which they had been doing in the past. It must be in the public interest that county councils should be allowed flexibility to allow a district council to carry out certain work through its direct labour force. I do not understand why there has been so much opposition to this minor and modest Bill.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I am sure that the House will be bitterly disappointed if I do not give the Liberal position on the Bill. I do not retract one word of what I said on Second Reading. I am aware that my remarks have been sent by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers to many Members of the House. I, too, wish to see proper accounting procedures brought into all direct labour organisations as quickly as possible.

Mr. Tebbit: But not yet.

Mr. Ross: In addition to the CIPFA proposals, we have only to examine the accounting procedures in the Greater


London Council to see what can be done. The situation there is worth studying. This is a difficult area in which to legislate and the building industry, with which I have had conversations, accepts that that is the case.
Like hon. Members who sat through the Committee stage, I have been seeking undertakings from the Minister on this matter, and he gave some pretty firm assurances today. The problem is that these amendments are incorrectly drafted, as was admitted by Baroness Young in the other place. I would remind the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that he had a great deal to do with local government reorganisation a few years ago and is partly responsible for this situation with the direct labour organisations.
We are constantly reminded of the need to pass legislation that is clear in meaning and workable. Those of us who have been representatives on local authorities know that legislation is repeatedly passed by the House that is indistinct, unclear and often not even workable. That is probably the case with these amendments. They are laudable, and I had hoped to be able to advise my colleagues that they should support the amendments. I had hoped that they would prove acceptable to the Government. However, I have listened to the Minister's speech and I accept that the amendments are clearly defective.
We have been given an assurance about the early publication of a consultation document which will be followed by a circular. If the Minister will not delay in bringing these matters before the House and will assure us that, if necessary, he is prepared to legislate to ensure that recalcitrant authorities must adhere to the circular, we should be satisfied. Hon. Members will recall that I had a Private Member's Bill, the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill. We have had to legislate because some local authorities would not come into line with the circular issued in 1974.

Mr. Speed: Does not the hon. Member agree that the 13 weeks that the Government have had should have been sufficient time to put into the clause something acceptable to all concerned?

Mr. Ross: That is not really the case, because we are already late with the Bill.
It should have been in force in the spring, by the end of March, and the Opposition have already been extremely irresponsible over the Scottish direct labour Bill. I do not know what the side effects of that defeat will be, but I am not prepared to be responsible for putting out of work employees of the 12 principal authorities—I think it is 12—that are mainly concerned. I understand that Stoke-on-Thent is the largest authority involved so far as the extent of work is concerned. I am not prepared to be responsible for putting some people in risk of losing their jobs. Direct labour employees who are worried about our attitude to the Bill have come to see me about it.
I must therefore support the Government this afternoon.

Mr. Michael Morris: We have had a long debate on this subject. The Minister now appears to be saying that these 25 districts can have a blank cheque until such time as he can bring forward a Bill. The Liberal Party in the Commons appears to be willing to go along with that although the more thoughtful members of the Liberal Party concede that there must be some control.
Even since our last debate on this subject the district auditor in Sunderland has had to call in the police—according to a report in the Journal, Newcastle—to investigate the direct labour use of van and crane hire. A disturbing aspect of this debate is that under the Tyne and Wear Act the six local authorities which are most active in this field have accepted provisions similar to those contained in these amendments. There is little difference between that Act and these amendments. Also, in the Department of Transport circular 24/77 the Government have said that for road works—which is a similar matter—proper records, accounts and documents should be kept. Therefore the Government's position today does not stand up. The Department of the Environment is asking for separate accounts in one case and, an Act concerning the most active local authorities in this matter provides that they must keep separate accounts and be competitive.
I find the position of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) quite astounding. He has had experience in these matters. He has said that he


supports the provisions in the amendments in broad principle and yet, now that the time has come for him to cast his vote and give advice to his colleagues—and he wrote to the National Federation of Building Trades Employers last week saying that his party supported the amendments—he has said that, provided that there is a discussion document and that the Minister will at some time bring forward a Bill, he is prepared to go along with the Bill as it stands. The country should judge the Liberal Party on that. I ask the hon. Member for the

Isle of Wight for some hard evidence to show where people are out of work. There are more than 250,000 people out of work in the building industry, and for every one put out of work by a direct labour organisation I am sure that there are many in private enterprise who could take up the job straightaway.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 200.

Division No. 223]
AYES
4.56 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Anderson, Donald
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Judd, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Duffy, A. E. P.
Kaufman, Gerald


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunnett, Jack
Kelley, Richard


Ashley, Jack
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kerr, Russell


Atkins, Ronald (Preston M)
Eadie, Alex
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Atkinson, Norman
Edge, Geoff
Kinnock, Neil


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lamble, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lamborn, Harry


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lamond, James


Bates, Alf
English, Michael
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Beith, A. J.
Ennals, David
Leadbitter, Ted


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Evans, John (Newton)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Flannery, Martin
Litterick, Tom


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Luard, Evan


Boardman, H.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ford, Ben
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Forrester, John
McCartney, Hugh


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McElhone, Frank


Bradley, Tom
Freeson, Reginald
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Freud, Clement
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Gilbert, Dr John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Ginsburg, David
McNamara, Kevin


Buchan, Norman
Golding, John
Madden, Max


Buchanan, Richard
Gould, Bryan
Magee, Bryan


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Gourlay, Harry
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Graham, Ted
Mahon, Simon


Campbell, Ian
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Canavan, Dennis
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Marks, Kenneth


Cant, R. B.
Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Carmichael, Nell
Hardy, Peter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Carter, Ray
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cartwright, John
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mendelson, John


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hatton, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Clemitson, Ivor
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cohen, Stanley
Heffer, Eric S.
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)


Coleman, Donald
Hooley, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Conlan, Bernard
Hooson, Emlyn
Molloy, William


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Horam, John
Moonman, Eric


Corbett, Robin
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cowans, Harry
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Huckfield, Les
Moyle, Roland


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Newens, Stanley


Cronin, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Noble, Mike]


Crowder, F. P.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Orbach, Maurice


Davidson, Arthur
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ovenden, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Janner, Greville
Padley, Walter


Deakins, Eric
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Pardoe, John


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parker, John


Dempsey, James
John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert


Doig, Peter
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Pavitt, Laurie




Pendry, Tom
Small, William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Penhaligon, David
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Perry, Ernest
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Phipps, Dr Colin
Snape, Peter
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Prescott, John
Spearing, Nigel
Ward, Michael


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Spriggs, Leslie
Watkins, David


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Stallard A. W.
Watkinson, John


Richardson, Miss Jo
Steel, Rt Hon David
Weitzman, David


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wellbeloved, James


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Stoddart, David
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Stott, Roger
White, James (Pollok)


Roderick, Caerwyn
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Rooker, J. W.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Roper, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Rose, Paul B.
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ryman, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Woodall, Alec


Sandelson, Neville
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Woof, Robert


Sedgemore, Brian
Tierney, Sydney
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Selby, Harry
Tinn, James
Young, David (Bolton E)


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Torney, Tom



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tuck, Raphael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. James Hamilton and


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Mr Joseph Ashton


Skinner, Dennis






NOES


Adley, Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Aitken, Jonathan
Glyn, Dr Alan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Arnold, Tom
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Marten, Neil


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Goodhew, Victor
Mates, Michael


Baker, Kenneth
Goodlad, Alastair
Mather, Carol


Banks, Robert
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maude, Angus


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mawby, Ray


Benyon, W.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Biggs-Davison, John
Gray, Hamish
Mayhew, Patrick


Blaker, Peter
Griffiths, Eldon
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Boscawen, Hon Robers
Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Bottomley, Peter
Grylls, Michael
Mills, Peter


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hampson, Dr Keith
Moate, Roger


Brittan, Leon
Hannam, John
Molyneaux, James


Brocklebank-Fowler, C
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Monro, Hector


Brooke, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Brotherton, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hastings, Stephen
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hayhoe, Barney
Mudd, David


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence L.
Neave, Airey


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Howell, David (Guildford)
Nelson, Anthony


Churchill, W. S.
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neubert, Michael


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Newton, Tony


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hurd, Douglas
Normanton, Tom


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nott, John


Clegg, Walter
James, David
Onslow, Cranley


Cockcroft, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Cope, John
Jessel, Toby
Osborn, John


Corrie, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Crouch, David
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Page, Richard (Workington)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kershaw, Anthony
Parkinson, Cecil


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kilfedder, James
Pattie, Geoffrey


Drayson, Burnaby
Kimball, Marcus
Pink, R. Bonner


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Dunlop, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Durant, Tony
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Prior, Rt Hon James


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Knox, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lamont, Norman
Raison, Timothy


Elliott, Sir William
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rathbone, Tim


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lloyd, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Luce, Richard
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Forman, Nigel
McCrindle, Robert
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Macfarlane, Neil
Sainsbury, Tim


Fry, Peter
MacGregor, John
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Scott, Nicholas


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)




Shepherd, Colin
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Shersby, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wall, Patrick


Sims, Roger
Stradling Thomas, J.
Walters, Dennis


Sinclair, Sir George
Tapsell, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Skeet, T. H. H.
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Weatherill, Bernard


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Wells, John


Smith, Timothy (Ashfield)
Tebbit, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Speed, Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Spence, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Younger, Hon George


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)



Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Townsend, Cyril D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Sproat, Iain
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Nigel Lawson and


Stainton, Keith
Vaughan, Dr Gerald
Mr. Peter Morrison.


Stanley, John
Viggers, Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 3 to 6 disagreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 7 agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 8 disagreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. Guy Barnett, Mr. Reginald Freeson, Mr. Michael Maoris and Mr. Keith Speed; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Freeson.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 9

ACTIVITIES RELATING TO PETROLEUM

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 7, line 14, after "power" insert
subject to the approval of the Secretary of State

5.11 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 2 to 5.

Mr. Eadie: The effect of Amendment No. 1 is very similar to the amendment tabled by Opposition hon. Members and debated at length in Committee before being rejected on a Division. In moving

that amendment they made much of the fact that Section 2(4) of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975 provides for the British National Oil Corporation to secure the Secretary of State's consent before going into the refining and downstream petrochemical business.
For reasons that I sought to explain at the time, an analogy between BNOC and the National Coal Board in this respect does not hold good. There are very good reasons why the Secretary of State's consent should be required in the BNOC's case and why it is not needed in the case of the NCB.
First, the BNOC's relationship with the Government is necessarily closer. I need only mention the national oil account and the vast revenues that will accrue to BNOC. Secondly, whereas the NCB has duties prescribed in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, the BNOC has no specific duties. Instead, it has been given general powers.
The NCB's duties are defined in Section 1 of the 1946 Act, and include working and getting the coal in Great Britain and securing the efficient development of the coal mining industry. None of the new powers to be conferred on the NCB by the Bill can in any way distract the Board from its prime task of discharging those duties. The connection between Clause 9 and one of those duties—that of securing the efficient development of the coal mining industry—is explicitly and carefully defined in lines 20–25 of Clause 9(1).
The fact that the NCB is circumscribed by the priority that it must accord to discharging its statutory duties distinguishes it quite clearly from the BNOC, which has no duties but general powers. Given also the close relationship of the BNOC with the Government and the vast revenues that will accrue to it, a requirement that it secures the Secretary of


State's consent before embarking on refining and downstream activities makes very good sense. However, because of the differences that I have described, that does not mean that it is equally sensible to provide for consent in Clause 9.
When we debated this matter in Committee I referred to other factors that rendered the amendment unnecessary. First, Section 3(2) of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 states that
In framing programmes of reorganisation or development involving substantial outlay on capital account, the Board shall act on lines settled from time to time with the approval of the Minister.
This is given effect each year by the provision by the NCB to the Secretary of State of its forecasts of capital expenditure and its view of the development of the industry over the next five years. This covers not only the Board's mining operations but its non-mining activities. It would certainly include the Board's plans for exercising the powers in Clause 9.
Secondly, if at some future stage the financing of activities under Clause 9 were to involve loans by the Government to the Board, or by the Board to one of its subsidiaries, the Government would have complete financial control. Furthermore, if it were a question of financial guarantees and not loans, the Government would also exercise control over the giving of guarantees by the Board or one of its subsidiaries. The relevant provisions are set out in page 13 of the Bill.
Thirdly, as a last resort there remains on the statute book the Coal Industry Act 1971, under Sections 6 and 7 of which the Secretary of State has power to call for a report by the Board on its non-colliery activities and to direct the Board to discontinue or restrict any of its activities, or to dispose of any assets provided that the activities or assets are not necessary to the discharge of its duties.
5.15 p.m.
The amendment puts a statutory obligation on the NCB to secure the approval of the Secretary of State before undertaking any activity under Clause 9. The Government take the view that this is unnecessary in the light of existing arrangements. To sum up, nothing that the NCB could do under Clause 9 could derogate from or take precedence over its statutory duties. Under Section 3(2)

of the nationalisation Act the Secretary of State already exercises a broad control over the NCB's plans for capital investment. He has financial control over any loans by the Government or by the Board and over the giving of financial guarantees. In the last resort, if he does not like something that the Board is doing in the non-mining sector, he can resort to the rather Draconian powers in the 1971 Act.
In the Government's view the amendment would add an unnecessary piece of bureaucratic procedure to arrangements that are already perfectly adequate.

Mr. Peter Rost: The Minister has now said three times that the amendment is unnecessary. If it is so unnecessary, why does he go to so much trouble to resist it?

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman has heard me on this tack before. I could retort by asking the hon. Gentleman why he is on his feet saying the same things that he said in Committee, when we had a long debate on these issues.
The points that I made in dealing with Amendment No. 1 about the adequacy of the existing control by the Government over the NCB's activities apply equally to Amendment No. 2. In my view it is even less appropriate to make activities under Clause 10 subject to the approval of the Secretary of State as they are never likely to be more than a marginal extension of the Board's main operations. The amendment would require proposed projects, however small, to be referred to the Secretary of State. That is quite unnecessary and is a bureaucratic luxury that we can well do without.
Amendment No. 3 is linked to No. 2 and sets out what the Secretary of State would have to do before he could give approval in the case of a project to work and get minerals by open-cast methods otherwise than in association with working and getting coal. He would have to consult the Secretary of State for the Environment. He would have to have regard to the capacity of the mineral industry to meet demand and then he would have to decide whether what was proposed was commercially reasonable and in the national interest.
The Government's opposition to the amendment is based not so much on


reservations about the drafting as on the unnecessary nature of the provision. The amendment is prompted, I know, by the apprehensions expressed by representatives of the bulk minerals industry. As I said on Report, I met the representatives myself and arranged for them to discuss their fears with the NCB. As a result of the meetings and of further discussions, a number of assurances were given to the industry. In dealing with the amendment I am afraid that it is necessary to test the patience of the House by going over them.
I said on Report that the NCB had confirmed that it had no present plans to expand into the aggregates industry. I also said that the powers in Clause 10 would not be used in this way to any significant extent. However, the Board did not wish to be precluded from using the powers if the circumstances were right.
I gave the further assurance that the Board had agreed that if during the five years from the enactment of the Bill it planned, using the powers under Clause 10, to embark on a project for extraction of bulk minerals by open cast operations, otherwise than in association with the working and getting of coal, it would notify the Sand and Gravel Association and the British Quarrying and Slag Federation. There could then be discussion about any points that still concerned them.
My noble Friend Lord Strabolgi reinforced that in Committee in another place when he said—this is extremely relevant to the amendment—that the normal planning processes would allow for the existence of spare capacity in the aggregates industry to be taken into account. The NCB, of course, will have to go through the normal planning process before it can work minerals under Clause 10.
In the light of these assurances I suggest that if Opposition Members support the amendment they will be allowing rather unjustified apprehensions to sway their judgment.
The Government and the Board have said that they fully appreciate the difficulties under which the aggregates industry is at present labouring, following the reduction in demand. They have no wish to aggravate those difficulties. However, the assurances that have been given

should surely be sufficient to allay the concern of the industry. In the Government's considered view the amendment is quite unnecessary.
I now turn to Amendment No. 4. I recognise that it is seeking to entrench in the Bill the assurance that I gave to the House on Report in Vol. 124, c. 1963 of Hansard. It also goes somewhat further in requiring the Secretary of State's approval under Amendment No. 2 to he subject to the consultation having taken place. I have already given reasons why I believe that that particular amendment should be deleted, but I should like to give additional reasons why the remaining substance of this amendment is unhelpful.
The assurance that I gave on Report was given after consulting the Coal Board and can be taken entirely at its face value. Indeed, this House did just that when the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam)) withdrew an amendment in the light of the statement that I was able to make. I am therefore slightly disappointed to find this new amendment on the return of the Bill from another place. I think that it could rightly be seen as insulting to the sincerity of one of our major nationalised industries when a considered and categorical statement, made with its agreement, is not seen as sufficent guarantee of its conduct.
It may be that the other place felt that Ministers change from time to time and that it was not enough to have a guarantee given by a Minister who may not in future be responsble for the industry concerned. If so, there are two points to be made. First, the undertaking is one that the National Coal Board accepted, and there can be no doubt that it will he honoured. Secondly, this very Bill includes an illustration of the Government honouring an undertaking given in Parliament not five but 10 years ago. I am referring to Clause 9 and my explanation earlier in our proceedings that, in deciding that an express new power in the shape of Clause 9 should be given to the Board if it were to engage in petrochemical activities, the Government had regard to an undertaking given to Parliament by the then Government in 1966, when the National Coal Board (Additional Powers) Bill was being considered.
I think that I have given adequate material to the House to illustrate that it should reject the amendments.

Mr. Hamish Gray: I am afraid that the Under-Secretary of State has failed to convince my right hon. and hon. Friends of his reasons for not accepting these amendments. We believe that the amendments would considerably improve the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) said, if the amendments demand as much attention as the Minister has given to them, it will not make any difference if he accepts them.
We should like the assurances given by the Under-Secretary and by the Minister in another place to be written into the Bill. This is a perfectly reasonable request. The hon. Gentleman said that Ministers and Governments can change. Indeed, the Chairman of the National Coal Board can chance. Therefore, is it not a much greater protection to have the assurances that have been given written into the Bill? I think that their Lordships did a good job in sending this matter back for further consideration.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, referring to Clauses 9 and 10, merely seek further ministerial approval. They would translate the assurances that have been given into legislation.
Both clauses represent significant extensions of powers compared with those originally granted under the 1946 Act Both lead the NCB into new non-coal areas of activity and both have aroused considerable concern in the relevant industries. The mineral extraction industry has expressed great reservations. The Minister acknowledged that by meeting representatives of the industry. It is now in the best interests both of the NCB and of the other industries that may be concerned that these amendments should be accepted. It is desirable that there should be tighter ministerial control, and that is what we are seeking to achieve.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to write into the Bill the assurances that have been given by Ministers. This amendment is the essence of reasonable thought. It has been restricted to cover only opencast extraction of coal, not deep mining.

Furthermore, it applies only where the extraction does not take place along with working and getting coal. It also allows the Minister to be the judge of the demand on the industry, but in order to allay the fears of other industries it requires the Minister to consult the Secretary of State for the Environment and makes the Minister, not the Board, the judge of what is commercially reasonable and in the national interest.
During debates in Committee in another place the Minister gave a number of assurances. I shall quote what he said, because it is important in the context of this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi said:
Moreover, assurances have already been given that the Board has no present plans to expand its operations in the field of bulk mineral extraction; that it is extremely unlikely that the powers would be used to a significant extent in this field".
That is a good assurance, but it leaves a certain amount of flexibility that worries my hon. Friends to some extent. We believe that someone other than the Board should be the arbiter in such a case. It is surely in the national interest that, where the Board proposes to make such a decision, it should not be left entirely to the Board. We suggest that the judge in such a case should be the Secretary of State. Whether he is the most appropriate person I should not care to argue about, but the Minister might have come forward with a reasonable alternative.
Later, the Minister in the other place said:
This does not rule out individual cases where it may be in the national interest or commercially attractive to engage in such projects. But, under the procedure for notification to the industry during the next five years, the Board will, before deciding whether to go ahead, take into account any representations that the industry may wish to make."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18th July 1977; Vol. 386, cc. 121–2.]
Of course, the Under-Secretary here and the Minister in the other place gave the assurance that the Sand and Gravel Association and the British Quarrying and Slag Federation would be consulted on such matters. If the hon. Gentleman is genuine in his intention to accommodate those outside the coal industry because of their anxiety, surely it is not too much to ask that those assurances be written into the Bill.
Amendment No. 4 simply seeks to include the assurances in the legislation. It also has a link back to Amendment No. 2. If that amendment were to be accepted, during tie five years to which this amendment refers the Board and the Minister would be proceeding independently of each other, partly because the repercussions of the Board's intended operations on the industry should be considered by the Minister before giving his approval. If the Board has already allayed the fears of the industry, the approval of the Secretary of State should be forthcoming without too much difficulty.
We have a busy programme before the House today. Many Bills are coming back from the Lords. Therefore, I do not wish to take too much time in supporting the amendments. We have been round this track on a number of occasions. At this late stage we are merely trying to persuade the Government that the amendments are worthy of inclusion in the Bill. We hope that, even now, our arguments will persuade the Minister to accept the amendments, or at least some of them. I suggest that Amendment No. 3 in particular is worthy of further consideration.
I know that the Under-Secretary has studied these amendments, because he gave a long list of reasons why he could not accept them. I suggest that on this occasion his briefing is at fault. It may be that his civil servants are too hidebound and are not prepared to be flexible enough. If the hon. Gentleman listens to the comments that will no doubt be made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), I am sure that he, like all of us, will be convinced that the amendments have considerable merit. I must disagree with the reasons given by the Minister for not accepting the amendments.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: On occasions like this of course I declare my interest in the stone and bulk mineral industry, an interest that has been declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
I was rather surprised at some of the intonations of the Under-Secretary when he opened the debate, particularly because he prayed in aid the fact that the charter Act of 1946 states that any pro-

gramme of the NCB would be discussed with the Secretary of State. He also prayed in aid of Clause 3. If the Under-Secretary had gone a bit further and referred to other sections of the charter Act he would have found that Clause 10 of the Bill is not necessary to the NCB at all. He could thus have saved us great inconvenience.
If the Under-Secretary will look at the charter Act and refer to Section 1(2)(e) and Section 1(3) he will find that the Board's functions include
any activities which can advantageously be carried on by the Board with a view to making the best use of any of the assets vested in them by this Act".
In similar terminology, the 1946 Act states that the Board may do what is "requisite, advantageous or convenient". In order that the House may understand the magnitude of this I shall refer to a Written Answer that the Under-Secretary gave to me recently about the operations of the CEGB in looking for uranium in Saskatchewan in Canada. The answer stated that this was done under the available powers of the Electricity Act 1957, which gives the CEGB power to
carry on certain activities which appear to the Board to be requisite, advantageous or convenient … or with a view to making the best use of any assets vested in them.
If that is the case the 1946 Act would be requisite and we need not have bothered to go on to Clause 10. The significance of the point that I am raising is that, as the Minister has now moved from the general to the particular and is seeking specific powers in Clause 10, those powers must be adequately delineated and safeguards must be introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) was perfectly right in saying that the safeguards that are essential are that reserve powers must be with the Secretary of State to intervene and say whether these powers or the exercise of them are necessary.
I listened with great care to the Under-Secretary. He referred to the five-year surveys of the NCB that are submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. They were mentioned by Lord Strabolgi in another place. But during the Committee Stage we considered the Coal Industry Act 1971. The Under-Secretary spoke about this Act in the most scurrilous terms as being a left-over from the


Conservative Government. I referred to Section 6 of the Coal Industry Act, 1971, dealing with the power of the Secretary of State to call for a report on the Board's diversified activities, and Section 7, under which directions can be given to the Board to restrict its activities or dispose of any of its assets, and so forth.
The Minister has already given me a Written Answer to Questions on this matter, when I asked whether any of these powers have been used. The reply was that his right hon. Friend had made no direction under this section and at present had no plans to do so. Why, then, does the Minister pray in aid that the Secretary of State has all these powers up his sleeve—he had the audacity to mention that again this evening—yet he told me in a Written Answer that he had no intention of using those powers. If ever there were a piece of parliamentary humbug, that is it. I must leave that matter precisely where it stands. If the Minister will only refer back to Hansard and to the observations that he made he would learn how extraordinary it is that one could be in such a situation.
I turn now to Clause 10. Having looked at the words of the Government spokes. man in the other place on 25th July 1977, in Column 753, I find that Lord Strabolgi said that
it was implicit in the assurance already given that while demand for aggregates remained well within the capacity of the industry, the Board would not use powers under Clause 10 to any significant extent in working surface aggregate minerals".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25th July 1977; Vol. 386, c. 753.]
Is the Minister prepared to repeat that assurance in this House today?

Mr. Rost: It is not in the Minister's brief.

Mr. Skeet: If it is not in the Minister's brief I am sure that he could make a reference on a piece of paper and answer me in due course and repeat that assurance. The point that I have in mind here is this that if that assurance in the other place is relied upon, if one consults the Department of Environment forecast figures for aggregates one finds that in 1973 the mid-point in the range was 279 million tons. The forecast for 1985 is 237 million tons, which is very much below the 1973 peak. If we take the period 1976–1981 the average output

figure is estimated at 217 million tons and the output for 1982 to 1985 was estimated at 231 million tons. Therefore it looks as if the peak figure for 1973 will not be reached until after 1985. Are we to say that, following the undertaking given in the other place by the Government spokesman, no use of these powers will be made until after 1985? If I am right in my assessment the request for these powers in the Bill is premature, because 1985 is eight or nine years away. There are a number of Bills which come before the House from time to time dealing with the coal industry, and this matter could wait for a later Bill.
I also ask the Under-Secretary to give an undertaking to the House that the NCB will not engage in any other form of open cast operations until the production of aggregates has exceeded 330 million tons per annum, as shown in the publication of the Government's statistical services for the Department of the Environment, and that in accordance with one of the amendments that has been tabled he takes into account the capacity of the industry to deliver the products necessary for the construction industry and road construction. I am concerned with the recent report published by the Government, the transport policy White Paper, Cmnd. 6836, which indicates that the amount of money to be spent on major roads will be severely cut and therefore all the forecasts for the years ahead may be reduced considerably. Obviously, therefore, if the Minister does not intend to accept any of the Lords' amendments he must be prepared to give the necessary assurance that we are asking for.
On Amendment No. 3, if it was given as an undertaking, why is the Under-Secretary not prepared to write it into the Bill'? He could concede this amendment and concede Amendment No. 2 as well. I should have thought that the Minister would be concerned with the problems that the NCB has in looking after its primary function of having to extract coal. It already has enough problems on its plate, such as productivity problems. Productivity has been stabilised for approximately seven years, at roughly between 44 cwt and 45 cwt output per man shift. The NCB's prime consideration is the extraction of coal from the ground.
It is also necessary for there to be consultation on the problems that will arise in trying to absorb the additional powers under Clause 9 in dealing with petroleum and chemicals, and in operating abroad under the terms of Clause 11.
The powers that the Minister seeks under Clause 10 will not enhance the opportunities for marketing coal or coal products. The Minister has said that there is no intention to use these powers and he has not decided how they would operate.
It is essential for the Secretary of State to act as an arbitrator, as one who can stand well above the National Coal Board and tell it that a particular project is not viable or is unfair to the bulk mineral industry involved. Many small men are dependent for their livelihoods on the operations of their quarries and undertakings. For the National Coal Board these are entirely peripheral activities.
The Minister referred to the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 as though it was an encumbrance to the NCB. I should have thought that it was not. If the Minister thumbs through the pages of that Act he will see that the ancillary rights are obtained on application to the Chancery Division of the High Court. Under Section 3 the NCB would have to prove only that the granting of the ancillary rights was
expedient in the national interest.
We have seen how Ministers have construed" the national interest" in the past. The Minister's arguments against the Lords amendments are insubstantial and as light as gossamer. The Minister should have the courage to say that he is prepared to accept the Lords amendments or at least some of them.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I, too, have listened to what the Minister read so studiously from his brief, and my reaction accords precisely with that of my hon. Friends the Members for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) and Bedford (Mr. Skeet). I intervene in the debate at this very late stage of the proceedings because of the considerable interest in my constituency in the powers sought under the clause. Coal mining is an industry in my constituency, but so is gypsum mining. British Plasterboard, through its gypsum mines, is a major employer in my constituency.
In addition, numerous sand and gravel workings are to be found along the valley of the Trent, and many of my constituents are involved with them. The fears of that industry have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford. However, there is considerable concern among those engaged in the extraction of gypsum that the NCB will be given very wide powers to engage in the extraction of almost any mineral it might discover in the course of its exploration for coal.
From reading what the Minister has said in past debates, I have followed what the Government and the Coal Board have been trying to say about these wide powers. It has been argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford that the new powers are not necessary as the Board already has adequate powers in other statutes and it is therefore interesting to speculate on why it is felt necessary to make them so explicit. The Minister and the NCB have appeared to be trying to reassure everyone that they have no intention of using the extremely wide powers that they are seeking. It is most puzzling then that they seek them. The House should hesitate before agreeing to such wide powers as are provided for in the Bill.
The minimum safeguard that those in other industries are entitled to is provided for in Lords Amendment No. 2. It is that in exercising these sweeping powers the Board should be required to seek the approval of the Secretary of State of the day.
The Government have given an explicit assurance on open cast extraction of sand and gravel, although that is of little relevance to gypsum, which is usually extracted by deep mining. The further Lords amendments simply seek to write into the Bill the assurances that the Minister has already given, but the Minister is desperately trying to persuade us not to write them into the Bill. I can understand that people may feel a little indignant if their word alone is not acceptable, but it can do no actual damage to those who give these assurances if provisions in the same terms are written into the Bill to bind their successors in office. I cannot see that that would prevent the NCB doing anything it wants to do within the terms of the present assurances. I find the Minister's


opposition to these amendments, which are harmless and inconsequential if he means what he says, puzzling, and I hope therefore that the House will reject the Minister's case.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Eadie: Perhaps I may respond briefly to the debate. One of the major criticisms by the Opposition is that I spent too much time going into too much detail about why the House should resist the Lords amendments. It is strange that one should be criticised for devoting too much attention to argument advanced in the debate.
I have also been chided for not agreeing to write into the Bill the provisions sought by the other place. If hon. Members had listened to what I said about the amendments they would have heard me set out the reasons for not doing that. I was asked for genuine assurances, and that was what I gave. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said that he had read the earlier debate. I suggest that he re-reads it, because that will give him cause to reflect on what he said this afternoon.
I see no menace in the Bill. It was I who twice invited the Sand and Gravel Association to meet the NCB. It was conceded during the Report stage that I did everything possible to give assurances. I gave the assurances, the assurances arc genuine, and the concern that has been expressed is I believe unwarranted.

The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) made a significant remark. He said that we had been round this track before. I say to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet), having listened to his speech, that we have been round that same track before. These were the same speeches that we heard in Committee. I suggest therefore at that there are constructive and solid reasons for disagreeing with the Lords amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 2 disagreed to.

Clause 10

ACTIVITIES RELATING TO MINERALS OTHER THAN COAL OR PETROLEUM

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 8, line 17, at end insert—
(IA) Where the Board intend to exercise their powers under this section to work and get minerals by means of open-cast operations otherwise than in association with working and getting coal, the Secretary of State shall not give his approval under subsection (1) above unless he is satisfied, after consultation with the Secretary of State for the Environment and having regard to the overall demand on the capacity of the mineral industry, that the exercise of such powers by the Board would be commercially reasonable and in the national interest.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Eadie.]

The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 218.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 dis. agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Thomas Cox, Mr. Eadie, Mr. Gray, Mr. Hannam and Dr. J. Dickson Mabon Three to be the quorum.—[Mr Eadie.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — REPEAL OF SECTION 3 OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1961

The Lords disagree to the Commons amendment in page 34, line 7, for the following Reason—
Lords Amendment No. 15, Because it is inadvisable to fetter the discretion of the Court when dealing with offenders aged between 17 and 21 years.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we may take Lords Amendment No. 21.

Mr. John: I beg to move, That this House doth insist upon its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.
This matter concerns the question of the repeal of Section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961. It does not and did not appear in the Bill, yet this is the fifth time the matter has been debated during its passage. It has acquired a familiarity, not to say notoriety, amongst all those who have been concerned with the Bill. Nevertheless, I think it right that I should explain briefly what Section 3 is concerned with.
Section 3 was enacted to prohibit the court from passing a sentence of imprisonment of between six months and three years for those in the age band 17 to 21 or, if previously borstal training has been ordered, between six months and 18 months, and makes borstal training the appropriate medium-term sentence in such cases.
What worries me about the debate in the other place is that it seemed to


be assumed by those who took part that the only alternatives proposed were a sentence of less than six months or more than three years. But it is quite clear from the leading case upon the subject, the Lowe case, in which the previous Lord Chief Justice, the present Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice Stephenson took part, that the appropriate penalty in such cases was not a longer term of imprisonment than three years but borstal training.
The other place has now repeated its repeal of Section 3. I ask the House to disagree with that decision, first, on practical grounds, and, secondly, on grounds of principle. First, it has throughout been the concern of all of us in the House to try where proper to reduce the prison population. The effect of the repeal of Section 3 is a matter on which no precise evidence can be given at this stage, but I believe that it would have an effect on the length of time and the number of sentences. I am prepared to say that we cannot correctly predict the absolute effect. If we could, it would certainly be much easier to plan prison buildings than it is now. I think that it was accepted in Committee by the hon. and learned Members for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) and Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) that the effect of the repeal would be to increase the prison population. The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn, if he looks back at his contribution, will see that he said in terms not only that the prison population would be increased but that the use of Borstal as a sentence would be decreased.
The House ought to weigh the effect when it tries to legislate, because we cannot legislate blind to the consequences of what we are doing. First, there is the fact that young prisoner centres are overflowing. The majority of young prisoners are now serving their sentences not in young prisoner centres but in local adult prisons. We know from our experience and our prison debates over the past few months that the local prisons are areas of maximum pressure within the prison system. Already the percentage of prisoners who receive immediate prison sentences has almost doubled to 25 per cent. in the last decade.
By repealing Section 3 we should add to the numbers who go to local prisons to

be locked away for most of the day without sufficient work, education or recreation. The House should ponder the effect not only on the prisoners' lives but on the chances of their committing further offences through being committed to that sort of régime.
Even if the House were to agree to what the Lords have done, there are no resources to carry it out. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has to issue a consent order under the Bill to bring this proposal into effect, would not be able to do so for some considerable time for public expenditure reasons. I could easily tell the House "Let us accept it", knowing that the commencement order would not be laid for a considerable time, but I believe that it is wrong for anybody to tell the House "Do what you like, and we shall try somehow to shelter you from the practical consequences". The House must legislate in the belief that its wishes will be carried out, that they cost money, and that that money is not only findable but can be found within the time scale.

Mr. Neville Sandelson: Does not my hon. Friend equally recognise that, whatever the administrative difficulties may be, there is a vital principle at stake? That should perhaps concern the House more than any other consideration.

Mr. John: If my hon. Friend had been here at the beginning of my contribution he would know that I was dealing not only with the practicalities, which is as far as I was allowed to go before his intervention, but with the principle of the matter. If my hon. Friend will wait for the passage in which I deal with the principle, I think that he will be satisfied with what I have to say.
There are severe practical problems. If there is to be an addition to the already overcrowded prisons I should be wrong not to advise the House of the bad effect it would have on the staff in young prisoner prisons and local prisons through having an additional burden placed upon them. It would weaken morale greatly, and there is great anxiety in the prison service about the result of this debate.

Mr. John Lee: Mr. John Lee(Birmingham, Handsworth) rose—

Mr. John: May I be allowed to develop my point?
I wish to deal with the effect that this proposal would have on the borstal staff, who do a great deal of very good work. I regret that implicit in the argument is a devaluation—perhaps an unconscious devaluation—of the borstal system. I ask hon. Members, not only to consider the Angell case and the other cases relating to the width of régime in the borstal system, but to be clear about the effect on borstal staff of a devaluation of the kind which I have mentioned.

Mr. Lee: Plainly we are all concerned about the deleterious effect of overcrowded prisons upon young prisoners. However, assuming that the practical objection which my hon. Friend makes is valid, is there not a strong argument, on the criteria he has put forward, for abolishing prison sentences of six months or less for young offenders? Surely that would get away from the situation which almost everybody agrees has many objections.

Mr. John: The difficulty of making an argument which is in two parts is that people jump in on the first part when one intends to deal with the matter in the second part. I shall deal with the question of sentencing and policy towards young prisoners in the second part of my argument.
The 1961 Act moved away from imprisonment which had the containment philosophy in it towards a greater training element with a greater possibility of constructive development and therefore diminution of the chance of re-offence. Many hon. and learned Members and the judiciary have expressed dissatisfaction with Section 3. No one denies that Section 3 is not wholly satisfactory. Certainly it is not the last word in the matter—it was never intended to be—but the question which must be considered is whether by repealing Section 3 we should move back to the penal policy of the 1950s, which is what that would mean, or move forward to the future.
The blueprint for the future is the Younger Report, which recommended abolition of the three separate sentences of prison, borstal and detention and their replacement with a generic sentence of custody and control in which the court would set a determinate sentence.
Custody and control orders would avoid the false dichotomy between training and punishment. This is the way forward. and I am glad that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) appeared, in his recent speech to the NACRO conference, to accept the wisdom of the custody and control order.
However, there is implicit even in the custody and control order a resource problem, but I repeat our determination to work out a scheme which implements the Younger recommendation without substantial new resource implications. It cannot be a complete adoption of the Younger proposals, but I believe that it will be a worthwhile step forward. We shall bring the scheme to the House well within the time which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would have had to delay the commencement order so that right hon. and hon. Members may debate it. In the meantime, they can discuss certain choices, because choices are implicit in this new form of order, and as a result they can replace Section 3 with a more constructive and forward looking policy, which is the right policy for prisoners in the age group in question.
6.45 p.m.
Also at stake is the future of the Bill. The Bill has much of value in it. It reforms the law of conspiracy; it modernises the forcible entry statutes; it secures a vital redistribution of work from overloaded courts; and it secures the necessary increase in penalties to deal with many matters which need to be dealt with. It enshrines the work of two committees which would be brought to nought if the Bill were not passed, because I am bound to tell hon. Members that there would be no prospect of early reintroduction. It would be ironic if the Bill were to be defeated, supposing that the House follows my advice, on a provision which was not in the original Bill, which on any view of the central issue of the Bill is peripheral to the Bill and which was not considered by either of the committees whose work is enshrined in the Bill.

Mr. Carlisle: I am very bad at understanding the procedure, but is not the position that, as the Lords have passed the amendment, should this House choose to pass it the Bill would go forward with the amendment and it would not be killed? If the House chooses to reject the


amendment, the only way in which it can be killed is by the Lords insisting on it.

Mr. John: We are at the end of a long and tiring Session, but I did not think that I was making myself as unclear as that. I was addressing myself to the other place as well as to hon. Members, but it is right that I should put on record the consequences of the rejection by the other place of our decision.

Sir Michael Havers: Why not simply agree with the other place?

Mr. John: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a very good way of compromising. He must be excellent in the robing room on civil cases. His idea of a compromise is unconditional surrender on all occasions.
If the House were to accept my advice and to insist on the retention of Section 3, those who have to consider the matter at a later stage will weigh up the benefits of the Bill and the constructive way in which, I think, I have responded to their anxieties. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I will bring forward the principle of the custody and control order and will discuss it within the time scale with the House. To look forward to the future with Younger is better than to look back to the 1961 legislation. That is why I think the House should disagree with the Lords.

Sir Michael Havers: When one reads the various Home Office explanations given on the many occasions that amendments to repeal Section 3 have been before either this House or the other place, one is struck by the variety of arguments put forward. It is almost as if Mr. Micawber had said that he was waiting for something to turn down rather than for something to turn up, because every time the request is made a different reason for refusing it is given. I wish to make several points which need emphasising.
The judges speak with a single voice on this matter. The cases that we have been able to demonstrate where the consequences of Section 3 lead to ridiculous results are exceptions. It is not right to say that the prisons will be crowded with young men sentenced to terms of imprisonment of between six months and three years if Section 3 is repealed.
It is really the exceptions—the cases where there is no other proper alternative—which have led to some of the troubles that we have had already this summer. It is quite impossible to judge how many there would be. In a number of cases the Court of Appeal has upheld a judge who has said that he would like to impose a two-year sentence because six months was totally inadequate. He has been bound to give the prisoner three years because of the provisions of Section 3. In many cases a judge has awarded two-year sentences and has been told by the clerk of the court that he can give only three years or six months. The sentence has been changed to three years because the judge has felt that the seriousness of the crime made six months quite inadequate.
These are cases in which prisoners are serving longer terms because of the operation of Section 3. This is filling up the prisons with young offenders who should he released after 18 months or two years. However, their crimes are so serious that a six-month sentence is ridiculous. It is really these exceptions that have led to longer rather than shorter sentences, and therefore my hon. Friends and I will support these amendments.

Mr. Sandelson: The case against Section 3 is immense. This section is indefensible in principle, and in practice it is opposed by the judiciary at all levels. The overwhelming majority of Members at the Bar of all political sympathies and attachments who witness—unlike many hon. Members—these things in their professional experience in the courts are opposed to it. They see the deplorable consequencies that flow from the absurdities and anomalies in the operation of the section.
This is not a political issue. Loyal as I am or believe myself to be to my party and my colleagues, I am not prepared to vote today in support of such a restrictive measure which, under the guise of a social benefit in practice will result in serious individual injustice. It will give rise to a sense of grievance on the part of one defendant as opposed to another of equal guilt.
Our duty must be to show our concern here and now, and to take account, in our immediate concern of the issue, of the fact that the prospects for legislation in


the future are very uncertain. I very much hope that the Government—I welcome the assurance that my hon. Friend gave just now—will introduce a measure along the lines of the Younger proposals.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome legislation embodying an entirely new approach to sentencing policy. But that lies in the future. My concern is for the present and the dilemma which one or more judges will face tomorrow morning in sentencing young men in this age group who have been convicted of, or have pleaded guilty to serious criminal offences.
The present restriction is illogical and harmful to individuals who, through no fault of their own, will fall victim to it. It is also damaging to the proper administration of justice and the law. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has so ably steered the Bill through Committee, are both well aware of my views on this matter and, therefore, my vote tonight will be no surprise to them.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) I must congratulate the Minister of State because he has thought up a totally new set of reasons for opposing this amendment on this occasion. However, although his reasons are new they are no better than his previous ones. In fact they are worse. His reason about devaluing the borstal system and the effect on prison staff morale is one that I have never heard mentioned before in the confines of the Home Office in relation to the arguments against Section 3. The other reason the Minister of State gave was the effect on prison resources, but I must point out that the Government of which he is a member put a stop to the prison building programme that they inherited from us. Now they come forward and say that the shortage of resources makes it impossible to implement these amendments.
The Minister of State was right to remind me that in 1972–73 I was under pressure from both sides of the House when I resisted a Private Member's Bill to give effect to the matters contained in the amendment. At that time I also resisted an all-party attack on the Crimi-

nal Justice Act 1973. But my reasons for doing so then were twofold.
First, the Younger Committee was about to report; and secondly, I gave an undertaking in Committee that in future judges who thought that it proper to give a different sentence could indicate the length of time that they would prefer and the Home Office would bear it in mind. The Younger Committee reported and now, three years later, no action has been taken. Also, the Lord Chancellor's Department has put out a circular totally contradicting the principle that judges should indicate the length of the sentence that they want to impose. Therefore, the two bases on which I opposed these provisions in 1972–73 no longer exist.
I admitted in Committee that these amendments could increase the prison population. However, I think I pointed out that, if one looked at prisons as against borstal, in practice it might mean that some of those who go to borstal at present might go to prison instead. Therefore, in the narrow term this could increase the prison population, but it would not affect the 42,000 global population of prisons because this includes those in borstals and detention centres.
I believe, as do numerous judges who must have approached the Minister of State, that there are cases in which, as a result of this provision, people will get higher sentences than they otherwise would have done. While I concede that this will mean some change of resources in the Home Office, I still believe that three years after the Younger Committee has reported the argument against putting right something that has been bitterly opposed since 1961 has disappeared completely. I hope that the House will put this right tonight.
The Minister of State is worried about losing his Bill, but I think that his fears are groundless. If the amendment is carried the Bill will go through with the amendment in it. Therefore he need have no fear of losing it.

7 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: the discussion seems to have emphasised two points. The first is the feeling that we are postponing a desirable reform, and the second is the danger of accepting undertakings from the Home Office. We


face a choice, whether to accept the undertaking given by the Minister or to press on with the view expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) and to support the Lords amendment.
I believe that Section 3 of the 1961 Act was passed for reasons entirely of principle. Yet we have been asked to continue that provision as a matter of expediency. The Minister says that the administrative difficulties are so great and the prison population so large that the result of such a repeal will increase the prison population. Young men who now go to borstal might go to prison, and it is said that it is desirable that in their interests they should continue to go to borstal. The argument is put basically on the grounds of the pressure on the prison population.
I believe that it is better for the House to support the Lords amendment for the reason that there has to be a commencement order before the provision can come into effect. It is better for the House to decide this matter on the question of principle—namely, whether it is desirable to maintain this provision. Nobody tries to defend it.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk(Ormskirk)  rose—

Mr. Hooson: I do not wish to give way.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Mr. Alexander W. Lyon(York) rose—

Mr. Hooson: I cannot give way because I cannot decide to which hon. Member to give the Floor. However, since the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) is in my chambers, I suppose I ought to give way to him.

Mr. Lyon: That is the only benefit I have ever acquired from it.
The clause was introduced to stop young men who would otherwise have gone to borstal going to prison. Nobody is arguing the point put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle)—narnely that the alternative lies between prison and freedom. It lies between prison and borstal. It is thought right that young people under the age of 21 should go to borstal rather than prison. That still leaves open the principle, and every reforming organisa-

tion is in favour of that pinciple being continued. The only people the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has been listening to is the judges. He should listen to NACRO and take heed of what it says.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member for York gets these things wrong so often, and he has done so again on this occasion. Judges are required not to send anybody to prison unless that is the only appropriate sentence. In the judicial process it might be thought "Is this an appropriate case for borstal?" The court will have to decide whether the sentence should be one of three months or six years, and that is what judges are required to do.
Having listened to the arguments think that it is better for the House to support the Lords and for the Home Secretary to use the powers he has. I appreciate the fact that this country has not spent enough on its prison service. Any additional pressure on the Government to repair this omission and to make more prisons than borstals available should be encouraged, but it is difficult for this House to rely entirely on an undertaking such as that which was given by the Minister.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery Mr. Hooson), who speaks on behalf of the Liberals, surely missed the point. The real issue of principle is whether we should treat young offenders differently from the way in which we treat adult offenders. Many people may disagree with that view, but, if we agree that we should treat young offenders differently, it behoves us to agree with the Government on this issue.
I regard the Lords amendment as a retrograde step, because it would mean that we would punish rather than train those involved. It would mean that we should contain people rather than rehabilitate them. This is the issue of principle, which we have not discussed.
The initiative and pressure for the deletion of Section 3 of the 1961 Act has come from the judiciary. The pressure comes from the Law Lords and from nobody else. One can understand that the judiciary wants its sentencing policy unfettered, and presumably wants to be able to impose longer sentences. [HON. MEMBERS: No."] Yes. One of the


major complaints is that the judiciary does not have sufficient discretion. The result of this amendment would be that large numbers of young offenders would go to our already overcrowded prisons.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that when the Minister argued about the practical effects, that did not involve a matter of principle. But that is the issue of principle involved. Our prisons are grossly overcrowded, and many thousands of prisoners live two, three and sometimes four to a cell and are locked up for 23 hours out of the 24. They have little recreation, or association with other people, and they have little or no educational facilities available to them. I submit that if we allow this Lords amendment to go through, more young offenders will be subjected to that kind of treatment.
This argument relates to whether we feel it appropriate for young offenders to clog up even further our local prisons, or whether we should seek to pursue a policy of training, reform and rehabilitation. Nobody would argue that that is the way the matter works in practice, but it certainly works out a little more perfectly now than if we were to accept the amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) said that everybody knew the way he would vote. I have observed him twice in Standing Committee galloping enthusiastically to the brink and then hobbling dejectedly back from it. I am not sure how he will vote later. This is not just a matter of whether my hon. Friend accepts the word of his fellow lawyers on the Bench on this issue, because it must be remembered that there are outside the House other people who are as well informed and as sincere as are my hon. Friend and his colleagues who take a different view.
It is a pointless exercise to go through a public relations exercise for the sake of bowing to the virility of Lord Hailsham and his fellow travellers in the House of Lords, and we shall demean ourselves if we join in that charade. The Minister has said clearly, openly and fairly that, even if we accept the Lords amendment, he has no intention in practice of implementing it, and will implement the Younger Committee's Report, which was

favoured by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). We have to accept not the Minister's undertaking in this respect but his threat. I believe that there is no case to answer, and that we should accept the Minister's advice.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The House is anxious to move on, and I shall not repeat the arguments I put in Standing Committee. I stand by what I said then. I refer to the threat to this Bill following the Government's decision to stand by their decision in Standing Committee. If Judge Alan King-Hamilton were sitting listening to our deliberations he would have to retire for two hours to cool down. This is an even bigger gang-bang with the judges and the Lords against us, led by Lord Hailsham.
Lord Hailsham did not even trouble to intervene in the debate in the Lords, but he has hung a threat over the House that it will not be able to obtain a most important Bill, reforming many aspects of the criminal law, because he takes a different view from the Government on this one item, which was not included in either of the two reports on which the Bill is based. It is insufferable that, during the passage of the two criminal law measures passed by the House over the last year or so, we should have faced a threat from Lord Hailsham that if he does not get his way he will kill the Bill. Lord Hailsham did that to the Bail Act. The result of his amendment to it has been that the Act has had no effect on judges in the way that they exercise their new powers in relation to bail. If we were now to succomb to this blackmail by Lord Hailsham it would be insufferable.
The arguments on Section 3 are as strong now as they ever were. Those aged under 21 should not go to prison. Most people who are concerned about what happens to offenders after sentence are agreed upon that principle.
The judges are unanimously against it because they dislike their discretion being fettered in any way. They are strongly urging that there should be a reform precisely because they want to send people to prison rather than to borstal. The suggestion that that would not increase the prison population is absurd. Of course the judges want to send people to prison, because they feel that the only


way to deal with young men aged between 17 and 21 who have committed serious offences is to send them to prison. The Younger Committee Report, advocating generic sentencing. was wholeheartedly against that.
It would be absurd to repeal Section 3 now with the intention of bringing in the Younger proposals in a year or so's time. The result of that would be completely different from what is envisaged by this repeal. Quite apart from the logical arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) about the overlap, it would be absurd for us to repeal Section 3.
I feel most strongly about the threat by the Lords. There must be an end to such continual threats.

Mr. John: I hope that the advantages of the Bill, upon which my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and I have expounded, will be thoroughly considered. This is a worthwhile Bill, and it goes much wider than what the Lords wish to do by way of Section 3.
I should like to respond to the debate briefly and to refer first to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). I quote his exact words in Committee:
I think one must accept that the likelihood of the abolition of Section 3 is that more people will be sentenced to terms of imprisonment".—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee E, 16th June 1977; c. 422.]
I do not think that we in the House are right to ignore the very proper feelings of prison staff who, because of the size of the prison population, are unable to do the job that they want and who are in a state of low morale. That is a strange argument, but that is not to say that it is a bad argument. The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn, who belongs to a party that calls for even more cuts in public expenditure, is almost the last person who should refer to that particular issue.
I also want to refer to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). He must have listened to only half of the argument that I adduced. I do not blame him for that. Perhaps more than five minutes of my oratory wearies anybody, most of all the hon. and learned Gentleman. I split my contents into two arguments about practicality and principle. We should not be moving backwards in our policy, but towards the recommendations of Younger and a policy that should last us into the 1980s. That is the right course and that is why my undertaking offers a better assurance of an enlightened policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson) has said that he is concerned with the here and now. Here and now there are no resources, and no one should be under any illusions about that. If the House tonight rejects my advice, that will not make the task of judges any easier at all tomorrow.
My final point is in response to the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), who has said that we are talking about exceptional cases. That is no guarantee. We must assume that when the judiciary asks for its discretion not to be fettered it intends to use that discretion in such a way as to sentence more offenders to terms of imprisonment.
7.15 p.m.
Faced as we are with the problem of resources, it is better to keep borstal as the right repository for offenders aged between 17 and 20 for medium-term sentences, because there they will receive training as well as containment. Through training we assure ourselves against re-offence rather more than by putting offenders into local prisons, three to a cell and locked up for many hours a day. I hope that the House will accept my advice and reject the amendments.

Question put, That this House doth insist upon its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed:—

The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 196.

Division No. 224]
AYES
[5.49 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Armstrong, Ernest
Buchan, Norman
Davidson, Arthur


Ashley, Jack
Buchanan, Richard
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Ashton, Joe
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Atkinson, Norman
Campbell, Ian
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Canavan, Dennis
Deakins, Eric


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Cant, R. B.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Carmichael, Neil
Dempsey, James


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Carter, Ray
Doig, Peter


Bates, Alf
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dormand, J. D.


Bean, R. E.
Cartwright, John
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Clemitson, Ivor
Dunnett, Jack


Bidwell, Sydney
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Cohen, Stanley
Eadie, Alex


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Coleman, Donald
Edge, Geoff


Boardman, H.
Conlan, Bernard
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Corbett, Robin
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cowans, Harry
English, Michael


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Ennals, David


Bradley, Tom
Crawshaw, Richard
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cronin, John
Evans, John (Newton)




Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Luard, Evan
Roper, John


Flannery, Martin
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Rose, Paul 


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Ryman, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mabon Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Sandelson, Neville


Ford, Ben
McCartney, Hugh
Sedgemore, Brian


Forrester, John
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Selby, Harry


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McElhone, Frank
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'W'd)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Freeson, Reginald
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Gilbert, Dr John
Maclennan, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Ginsburg, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Small, William


Golding, John
Madden, Max
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Gould, Bryan
Magee, Bryan
Snape, Peter


Gourlay, Harry
Mahon, Simon
Spearing, Nigel


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Spriggs, Leslie


Grocott, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth
Stallard, A. W.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Hardy, Peter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stoddart, David


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stott, Roger


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Strang, Gavin


Hatton, Frank
Mendelson, John
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mikardo, Ian
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Swain, Thomas


Heffer. Eric S.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hooley, Frank
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Horam, John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Molloy, William
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Huckfield, Les
Moonman, Eric
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tierney, Sydney


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Moyle, Roland
Torney, Tom


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Tuck, Raphael


Hunter, Adam
Newens, Stanley
Urwin, T. W.


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Noble, Mike
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Ogden, Eric
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Orbach, Maurice
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Janner, Greville
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Ward, Michael


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ovenden, John
Watkins, David


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Padley, Walter
Watkinson, John


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur
Weitzman, David


John, Brynmor
Parker, John
Wellbeloved, James


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Parry, Robert
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Pavitt, Laurie
White, James (Pollok)


Judd, Frank
Pendry, Tom
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Kaufman, Gerald
Perry, Ernest
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Kerr, Russell
Phipps, Dr Colin
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Prescott, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lamble, David
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Lamborn, Harry
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lamond, James
Richardson, Miss Jo
Woodall, Alec


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woof, Robert


Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lee, John
Robinson, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roderick, Caerwyn



Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Litterick, Tom
Rooker, J. W. 
Mr. Ted Graham.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Bulmer, Esmond
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Aitken, Jonathan
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Carlisle, Mark
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Arnold, Tom
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Churchill, W. S.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Awdry, Daniel
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Kenneth
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Banks, Robert
Clegg, Walter
Fox, Marcus


Beith, A. J.
Cockcroft, John
Freud, Clement


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Cope, John
Fry, Peter


Benyon, W.
Corrie, John
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Biggs-Davison, John
Costain, A. P.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Blaker, Peter
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bottomley, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Drayson, Burnaby
Goodhew, Victor


Braine, Sir Bernard
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Goodlad, Alastair


Britten, Leon
Dunlop, John
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C
Durant, Tony
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Brooke, Peter
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Brotherton, Michael
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gray, Hamish


Bryan, Sir Paul
Elliott, Sir William
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Grylls, Michael


Buck, Antony
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)







Hampson, Dr Keith
Maxwell-Hyslop Robin
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hannam, John
Mayhew, Patrick
Scott, Nicholas


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Shepherd, Colin


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Peter
Shersby, Michael


Hastings, Stephen
Miscampbell, Norman
Silvester, Fred


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sims, Roger


Hawkins, Paul
Moate, Roger
Sinclair, Sir George


Hayhoe, Barney
Molyneaux, James
Skeet, T. H. H.


Higgins, Terence L.
Monro, Hector
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hooson, Emlyn
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Smith, Timothy (Ashfield)


Howell, David (Guildford)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Speed, Keith


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Spence, John


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Hurd, Douglas
Mudd, David
Sproat, Iain


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neave, Airey
Stainton, Keith


James, David
Nelson, Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jenkin, Rt Hon p. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Neubert, Michael
Stanley, John


Jessel, Toby
Newton, Tony
Steel, Rt Hon David


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Normanton, Tom
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Nott, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Onslow, Cranley
Stradling Thomas, J.


Kershaw, Anthony
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Tapsell, Peter


Kilfedder, James
Osborn, John
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Kimball, Marcus
Page, John (Harrow West)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Tebbit, Norman


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, Richard (Workington)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Pardoe, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Knox, David
Parkinson, Cecil
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Lamont, Norman
Pattie, Geoffrey
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Penhaligon, David
Townsend, Cyril D.


Lawrence, Ivan
Pink, R. Bonner
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lawson, Nigel
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Le Marchant, Spencer
Prior, Rt Hon James
Viggers, Peter


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Lloyd, Ian
Raison, Timothy
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Luce, Richard
Rathbone, Tim
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Wall, Patrick


McCrindle, Robert
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Walters, Dennis


Macfarlane, Neil
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Warren, Kenneth


MacGregor, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Weatherill, Bernard


MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Ridsdale. Julian
Wells, John


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Winterton, Nicholas


Marten, Neil
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Younger, Hon George


Mates, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)



Mather, Carol
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Maude, Angus
Royle, Sir Anthony
Mr. Peter Morrison and


Mawby, Ray
Sainsbury, Tim
Mr. Michael Roberts.

Division No. 225]
AYES
[7.16 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Forrester, John
Noble, Mike


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Ogden, Eric


Armstrong,, Ernest
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
O'Halloran, Michael


Ashley, Jack
Freeson, Reginald
Orbach, Maurice


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Gilbert, Dr John
Ovenden, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ginsburg, David
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Golding, John
Palmer, Arthur


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Gourlay, Harry
Parker, John


Bates, Alf
Graham, Ted
Parry, Robert


Bean, R. E.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Pavitt, Laurie


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Grocott, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hardy, Peter
Perry, Ernest


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Phipps, Dr Colin


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Prescott, John


Boardman, H.
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Heffer, Eric S.
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Horam, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Huckfield, Les
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Buchanan, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Rooker, J. W.


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Roper, John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Rose, Paul B.


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ryman, John


Campbell, Ian
Janner, Greville
Sedgemore, Brian


Canavan, Dennis
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Selby, Harry


Carmichael, Neil
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Carter, Ray
John, Brynmor
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cartwright, John
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Skinner, Dennis


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Judd, Frank
Small, William


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Kaufman, Gerald
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cohen, Stanley
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Snape, Peter


Coleman, Donald
Lamborn, Harry
Spearing, Nigel


Conlan, Bernard
Lamond, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Stallard, A. W.


Corbett, Robin
Leadbitter, Ted
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cowans, Harry
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stott, Roger


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Strang, Gavin


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Litterick, Tom
Swain, Thomas


Crawshaw, Richard
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cronin, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
McCartney, Hugh
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tierney, Sydney


Davidson, Arthur
McElhone, Frank
Tinn, James


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Torney, Tom


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Tuck, Raphael


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Urwin, T. W.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Maclennan, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Deakins, Eric
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McNamara, Kevin
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dempsey, James
Madden, Max
Ward, Michael


Doig, Peter
Magee, Bryan
Watkins, David


Dormand, J. D.
Mahon, Simon
Watkinson, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Weitzman, David


Dunnett, Jack
Marks, Kenneth
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
White, James (Pollok)


Eadie, Alex
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Edge, Geoff
Meacher, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mendelson, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


English, Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ennals, David
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Woodall, Alec


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
Woof, Robert


Evans, John (Newton)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Molloy, William



Flannery, Martin
Moonman, Eric
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Moyle, Roland
Mr. James Hamilton and


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Mr. David Stoddart.


Ford, Ben
Nawens, Stanley








NOES


Adley, Robert
Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hannam, John
Page, Richard (Workington)


Awdry, Daniel
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Parkinson, Cecil


Baker, Kenneth
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Pattie, Geoffrey


Banks, Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Penhaligon, David


Beith, A. J.
Hastings, Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Benyon, W.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James


Biggs-Davison, John
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Blaker, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney
Raison, Timothy


Bottomley, Peter
Hicks, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Higgins, Terence L.
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hooson, Emlyn
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Brittan, Leon
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brocklebank-Fowler, C
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Brooke, Peter
Hurd, Douglas
Ridsdale, Julian


Brotherton, Michael
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rifkind, Malcolm


Bryan, Sir Paul
James, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Bulmer, Esmond
Jessel, Toby
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Royle, Sir Anthony


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kilfedder, James
Sainsbury, Tim


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kimball, Marcus
Sandelson, Neville


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Scott, Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Cockcroft, John
Knox, David
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Cope, John
Lamont, Norman
Shepherd, Colin


Corrie, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shersby, Michael


Costain, A. P.
Lawrence, Ivan
Silvester, Fred


Crouch, David
Lawson, Nigel
Sims, Roger


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Luce, Richard
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Drayson, Burnaby
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, Timothy (Ashfield)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
McCrindle, Robert
Speed, Keith


Dykes, Hugh
Macfarlane, Neil
Spence, John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacGregor, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Elliott, Sir William
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sproat, Iain


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Marten, Neil
Steel, Rt Hon David


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maude, Angus
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mawby, Ray
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tapsell, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mayhew, Patrick
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Forman, Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Tebbit, Norman


Fox, Marcus
Mills, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Freud, Clement
Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Fry, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Moate, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D.


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Molyneaux, James
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Gilmour, Sir John (East File)
Monro, Hector
Viggers, Peter


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Goodhart, Philip
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wall, Patrick


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walters, Dennis


Goodlad, Alastair
Mudd, David
Warren, Kenneth


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Nelson, Anthony
Weatherill, Bernard


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Neubert, Michael
Wells, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Newton, Tony
Winterton, Nicholas


Gray, Hamish
Nott, John
Younger, Hon George


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Onslow, Cranley



Grist, Ian
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
TELLERS FOR THE NOES;


Grylls, Michael
Osborn, john
Mr. Spencer le Marchant and


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, john (Harrow West)
Mr. Jim Lester.

Question accordingly agreed to.

CRIMINAL LAW BILL [Lords]

Lords amendments to Commons amendments, consequential amendments made by the Lords, Lords amendments in lieu of certain Comnions amendments and Lords Reason for disagreeing to certain Commons amendments, considered.

Clause 6

VIOLENCE FOR SECURING ENTRY

The Lords agree to the amendment made by the Commons in page 6, line 37 and have made the following consequential amendment to the Bill:

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 6, line 36, leave out second "or".

6.3 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I beg to move.


That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we are to take Lords Amendment No. 9.

Mr. John: These amendments are consequential on amendments made on Report, when we moved to reduce the penalties for the offences in Clauses 6 and 8. All that we are doing here is to leave out the word "or", which would have led to more severe penalties under those two clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7

ADVERSE OCCUPATION OF RESIDENTIAL PREMISES

The Lords disagree to the Commons amendments in page 7, line 8, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 7, line 8, leave out from first "of" to end of line 8 and insert:
(a) a displaced residential occupier of the premises; or
(b) an individual who is a protected intending occupier of the premises by virtue of subsection (1A) or subsection (1C) below.

(1A) For the purposes of this section an individual is a protected intending occupier of any premises at any time if at that time—

(a)he has in those premises a freehold interest or a leasehold interest with not less than 21 years still to run and he acquired that interest as a purchaser for money or money's work; and
(b)he requires the premises for his own occupation as a residence; and
(c)he is excluded from occupation of the premises by a person who entered them, or any access to them, as a trespasser; and
(d)he or a person acting on his behalf holds a written statement—

(i) which specifies his interest in the premises; and
(ii) which states that he requires the premises for occupation as a residence for himself; and
(iii) with respect to which the require. ments in subsection (1B) below are fulfilled.

(1B) The requirements referred to in subsection (1A)(d)(iii) above are—

(a) that the statement is signed by the person whose interest is specified in it in the presence of a justice of the peace or commissioner for oaths; and

(b) that the justice of the peace or commissioner for oaths has subscribed his name as a witness to the signature;
and a person is guilty of an offence if he makes a statement for the purposes of subsection (IA)(d) above which he knows to be false in a material particular or if he recklessly makes such a statement which is false in a material particular.

(1C) For the purposes of this section an individual is also a protected intending occupier of any premises at any time if at that time—

(a) he has been authorised to occupy the premises as a residence by an authority to which this subsection applies; and
(b) he is excluded from occupation of the premises by a person who entered the premises, or any access to them, as a trespasser; and
(c) there has been issued to him by or on behalf of the authority referred to in paragraph (a) above a certificate stating that the authority is one to which this subsection applies, being of a description specified in the certificate, and that he has been authorised by the authority to occupy the premises concerned as a residence.

(1D) Subsection (1C) above applies to the following authorities:—

(a) any body mentioned in section 14 of the Rent Act 1977 (landlord's interest belonging to local authority etc.);
(b) the Housing Corporation; and
(c) a housing association, within the meaning of section 189(1) of the Housing Act 1957, which is for the time being either registered in the register of housing associations established under section 13 of the Housing Act 1974 or specified in an order made by the Secretary of State under paragraph 23 of Schedule 1 to the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975."

Mr. John: I beg to move, That this House do not insist upon its amendments to Clause 7 and agree with the Lords in their amendments proposed in lieu.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 and amendments thereto, and Lords Amendment No. 8.

Mr. John: Hon. Members who were present during the debate will recollect that there was a discussion based on Amendment No. 37 in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) about the scope and nature of the clause. After some discussion, an agreement was arrived at whereby a narrower and less open to abuse clause should be substituted in place of the new clause then being moved. These are amendments which incorporate that agreement. Perhaps I may give very briefly the details of them.
The position of the displaced residential occupier is undisturbed. But, in addition to that, the benefits of Clause 7 are extended to a protected intending occupier—that is, a person allocated a tenancy by a local authority or a housing association, and a person who has bought the freehold or a long lease on premises which he requires for occupation by himself as a resident. In each case there are supplementary provisions to prevent abuse, to ensure that the trespasser clearly understands his liability to be convicted of a criminal offence, and to give a police constable a firm basis on which to exercise his powers.
In the case of a local authority tenant, there will have to be a certificate signed by the local authority to confirm that a tenancy has already been allocated. In the case of a person who has bought a house or flat, he will have to make a properly witnessed statement to declare his interest in the premises and that he requires them for his own occupation. The other amendments are consequential upon those amendments.
I commend these proposals to the House.

Miss Jo Richardson: I beg to move, as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 2, subsection (1A), after paragraph (b) insert:
(bb) he intends to take up residence of the premises within six weeks; and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments to Lords Amendment No. 2:
In subsection (lA)(d), at end of subparagraph (ii), insert:
(iii) which states the date by which he will have taken up residence of the premises, being a date less than six weeks after the day that the statement is signed; and'.
In subsection (1B), after 'subsection (1A)(d)(iii)', insert and subsection (1E)
(c) below.'
In subsection (1B), after second 'above', insert ' or subsection (1E) below.'
In subsection (1C), after paragraph (a), insert:
'(aa) he intends to take up residence of the premises within six weeks; and'.
After subsection (ID), insert:

'(1E) For the purposes of subsection (1) above no person shall be guilty of the offence of failing to leave premises on being required to do so by or on behalf of a displaced residential occupier unless the person making the request holds a written statement—

(a) which specifies his interest in the premises; and
(b) which states that he was resident on the premises until he was excluded from occupation by a person who entered them, or any access to them, as a trespasser; and>
(c) with respect to which the requirements of subsection (IB) are fulfilled.'.

We may also take the following amendments to Lords Amendment No. 7:
In subsection (2AA), after first 'of', insert
'a displaced residential occupier of the premises or'.
In subsection (2AA), paragraph (a), after 'above', insert ' or subsection (1E) above'.

Miss Richardson: Lords Amendment No. 2 is in my opinion, and, I think, in the opinion of most Labour Members, certainly an improvement on the amendment which was carried on Report, which expanded the scope of Clause 7 so widely that it would have given rise to abuse by unscrupulous landlords. In practice, therefore, if that had been left in the Bill, it would have made it impossible for those in possession to challenge the good faith of those claiming to be entitled to possession. I am glad that Lords Amendment No. 2 has gone through the House of Lords and that we are now considering it.
What I have tried to do is merely to seek to tighten up the Lords amendment a little, and I should like to explain why. My amendments fall into two groups. The intention of the first group is to make matters clear to protected intending occupiers, hereinafter referred to as "PIO". We seem to be producing more and more sets of initials. When I saw the initials "PIO", I could not think what they meant. I was inclined to mix them up with something in the Middle East.
However, having got protected intending occupiers, the intention of the first group of my amendments is to make clear that the criminal law can be invoked only when actual occupation has been stopped. In other words, if a person buys a house and finds that there are squatters therein, under the present Lords Amendment No.
2 he needs only to say that he intends to occupy at some future date. At least, that is how I read the Lords amendment. If there is a more specific intention than that, I should very much like to hear what it is from the Minister. If the present clause had contained, for example, the word "immediate" or some qualifying phrase such as that, I should have been happier. That is why I am seeking to insert a time limit of six weeks.
If the Minister would spell out what the intention really is, I might withdraw my amendment, depending upon what he says, but I believe that my amendment would make the whole clause clearer. I have tried to pace it out. It stretches from the original half a page on Clause 7 to about two and a half pages on Clause 7. It is growing, but my amendment would make it clearer.
The hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) talked on Report about the sense of outrage that people felt about being prevented from taking up residence. It is a sense of outrage that everyone understands. I think that my amendment restricts the clause to that, and I hope that the House will support it.
With regard to the second group of amendments, I ought to explain that there appears to have been a misprint. It can only be a printer's error because I have checked the script which I put in. My second amendment in subsection (1B) should say: "after 'above' insert". That makes it clearer and that is, in fact, the manuscript which I put in to the Table Office.
The intention of the amendments is to extend the obligation to get a statement from the displaced residential occupier—the DRO—in the same way as will be the case with regard to a protected intending occupier. That will help the policeman on the beat who has to make the decision—and it is a difficult one—when he is called in to arrest a trespasser. He ought to be able to require proof that the displaced residential occupier is really a displaced residential occupier.
I shall give an example in order to make my argument more graphic. Let us suppose that a person buys a house or a flat, goes along with a removal van, takes in the packing cases and, because it is late in the afternoon or early in the

evening, does not want to do any more work. He sleeps on the premises overnight. In the morning he goes out to buy a pint of milk, but when he returns he finds that the flat has been taken over by squatters. Does that make him a protected intending occupier or a displaced residential occupier?
What I am seeking to do is to give real proof of the fact that someone who has slept overnight is a displaced residential occupier. That will make it easier all round for the alleged trespasser, the displaced residential occupier and the police to sort the matter out.
The Minister of State said something very much like that on Report. He said:
It would be valuable for any person who was seeking to act on behalf of a displaced residential occupier to furnish himself with the clearest evidence that he was doing so".—[Official Report, 13th July 1977; Vol. 935, c. 709.]
What I am seeking to do is to make sure that the displaced residential occupier shall be obliged to provide some written evidence that he is, in fact, a displaced residential occupier. That is the purpose of the amendments. They are designed to clarify the situation for all concerned, and I hope that they will find support in the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may perhaps be convenient to point out that the House is now considering Lords Amendment No. 2 and the amendments thereto, Lords Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 and the amendments thereto, and Lords Amendment No. 8.
A further item which should be noticed is that there is a misprint in the second amendment by the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) in subsection (1B) of Lords Amendment No. 2. It should read: "after ' above', insert 'or subsection'" and so on.

Sir Michael Havers: I express our gratitude to the Minister for responding in accordance with the discussions that we had and, indeed, for slightly extending what we had agreed by going as far as housing associations. The safeguards here are sufficient. While I understand the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Barking (Miss Richardson), I do not think that any time limit such as six weeks would be effective because a major reconstruction might


have to be done to the house—especially in the case of something like dry rot—and six weeks would not be enough time.
It seems to me that the safeguards are quite sufficient, and we are grateful that the Government have implemented their undertaking.

Mr. George Cunningham: There are very many hon. Members, particularly on this side of the House, who believe that the criminal law ought not to be involved at all in dealing with squatters. That is not my view. In any case, that is not what we are now doing in the Bill. The criminal law is to be involved to some extent, and up to some line, in dealing with the squatting situation.
The question which arises is whether we have defined wisely the line at which the operation of the criminal law stops. I must apologise that during earlier deliberations on Report I did not intervene. I was distracted by other matters. I was very pleased that the amendment moved by the Opposition was accepted on Report, and I am only sorry that it was accepted subject to an understanding that it would be amended by the Lords roughly along the lines on which it is now before the House.
6.15 p.m.
There are many parts of the country where the kind of difficulty which I want briefly to describe does not happen very much. But it certainly happens an awful lot in my part of the world. Very frequently these days, in a borough like Islington, the borough council, the GLC, the Ministry of Defence or a housing association buys old properties and does them up. The rehabilitation is very extensive and expensive and the time taken is prolonged.
One does not offer a place to a tenant before the work is done. If one did, no tenant would normally say "Yes" in those circumstances. While the work is being done over some months, and at a cost of many thousands of pounds per unit dwelling, no tenant is allocated to the accommodation.
A common occurrence is that when this prolonged and expensive work of rehabilitation is just about completed, in come the squatters. They have watched the work going on, and they pop in.
Often they are not the kind of squatters who see an empty home, and because they are really homeless they move in to put a roof over their heads. They are often what I would describe as middle-class squatters.
As a result, in my constituency the GLC has to pay patrols outside the places that it is doing up in order to ensure that once they are done up they will be available to people on the waiting list and will not be immediately occupied by squatters. I have had the same situation with regard to Ministry of Defence buildings in my constituency where, as soon as the work is done, in come the squatters. There is another area where private residents in accommodation which was being renovated have felt obliged to put out vigilante patrols so that squatters would not move into those units of accommodation into which they were due to be moved when the work was completed. But since no tenant had been allocated for any particular accommodation, they would not qualify under the terms of the amendment as protected intending occupiers.
My feeling is that the language adopted by this House on Report is roughly correct with regard to this point. A local authority or its housing manager ought to constitute an intending occupier or a residential occupier in respect of this accommodation. We ought so to define "residential occupier" as to include a local authority within the definition in respect of this accommodation.
If it were possible so to draft that definition that it applied only in cases where the accommodation could soon be occupied and was intended so to be occupied, I would certainly go along with that, because that would exclude the case of broken-down property which was not likely to have any work done on it and certainly would not be occupied for an extensive period.
If it were not possible to define that line between accommodation about to be occupied and other accommodation, I would have preferred to give to any local authority this special legally protected status in respect of this accommodation. We have now found an illogical line. It means that, if a property comprising three units of accommodation has had £50,000 spent on it to do it up, which it often the case in my constituency, but


tenancies have not yet been allocated, the criminal law will not be involved when squatters move into it, but that as soon as tenancies have been allocated the criminal law comes into operation.
There is no logical defence for drawing the line precisely in that place. In an area where this kind of situation persists, I believe that the changes to the law which have now been made will be useless and that the changes which we have dropped between what we did on report and the Lords' consideration of the Bill are the ones that we need and the ones which we shall miss having in the years to come.

Mr. John: Let me first deal with the amendments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson). I think that I can show her that they are unnecessary. As regards her proposed six weeks' time limit, she is being more generous than the Bill, because, in order to qualify, a protected intending occupier must be excluded from the premises at that time and he must intend to use them as occupation for his own residence at that time. In fact, that is tighter rather than looser.
My hon. Friend's second point concerns the displaced residential occupier. There are three brief reasons which I adduce against the requirement of a statement. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the person who is a displaced residential occupier will be perfectly clear. There will be furniture arid effects in the house which will identify the person and which the displaced residential occupier can identify to the squatter to make him aware of his rights. Generally, he will be known in the locality as a person who has occupied the house. It should be easy for the police to identify that person and to act upon his instructions.
The second reason is that the requirement to sign a statement personally will exclude one category which the Committee had in mind, arid that was the person who was in hospital at the time. It might be very difficult for a person in hospital at the time to sign such a personal certificate.
The third reason which I suggest to my hon. Friend, although not with any great force, is that her second group of amendments are technically defective. However, I hope she will accept that the

anxieties which she expressed are met in the Lords amendment as it is.

Mr. Graham Page: The Minister of State said that, under the amendment as it is drafted, it would be necessary for the PIO to show that he required residence in the premises immediately. This is subsection (I A)(b),
he requires the premises for his own occupation as a residence".
Does the hon. Gentleman read into that that he requires them immediately—at that moment?

Mr. John: It is coupled with exclusion from that residence, which also connotes the desire to occupy that property at that time.
I come, then, to the matters raised by by hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I quite understand what he means. He has always taken the strong view that the local authority should be as entitled as a person to have the powers of the criminal law.
I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend, and it is distinguishable in the fact that the position which arises when a tenancy has been granted to an individual and when a person has purchased a house is much more immediate and much more fraught with difficulty than when a local authority has a squat on its hands before it allocates the tenancy.
I do not think that my hon. Friend can read this in isolation from the improvements to the civil procedure which we have also made, the effect of which will be in some calculations to halve the time under the accelerated procedure which is necessary to recover possession. I believe that the combination of the civil procedure for the person who is not either displaced or an intended residential occupier and the improved civil procedure for local authorities which have to manage property will give a very worthwhile and very speedy remedy against squatters.

Mr. George Cunningham: Can my hon. Friend tell me the answer to the following problem? Let us say that a local authority has a lot of the kind of accommodation that I have described which is expensively done up but tenancies for which are not yet allocated, and it then has a squatting problem on its


hands. Would it be possible for the local authority to use subsection (1C) by giving the certificate to its housing manager in respect of all that accommodation? Would not that bring the law into operation?

Mr. John: No, I do not think that it would. The local authority would have to grant a tenancy, which would be a bona fide tenancy. The situation which my hon. Friend describes would be a much wider one dealing with a block of property. In my view, we have achieved the right balance in the Lords amendment. The civil procedure will be helpful to local authorities in dealing with these matters.

Mr. Graham Page: I am a little puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's answer to my intervention. In the case of someone who is entitled to occupation at once and who requires to put in decorators before he enters into residence, surely he is covered as the clause is now worded. He is entitled to immediate occupation, not necessarily for immediate residence but for eventual residence. To say that he has to show and to prove to the policeman who supports him that he requires to live in those premises immediately is not what the clause says—that he requires occupation immediately and for eventual residence.

Mr. John: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the end of the second line of subsection (1A), he will see the words "if at that time." Then it follows from there.

Miss Richardson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for spelling out how the Lords amendment will work in practice. What he has said will be useful when it is read in addition to the amendment. I shall go away from the House for the Summer Recess with the words "defective drafting" ringing in my ears. However, I have no explanation of how defective is "defective" and what it really means.

Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 agreed to.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause A

BOMB HOAXES

The Lords disagree to the first Commons amendment in page 29, line 42, but propose the following amendments in lieu thereof—

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 29. line 42, at end insert New Clause A:

"A.—(1) A person who—

(a) places any article in any place whatever; or
(b) dispatches any article by post, rail or any other means whatever of sending things from one place to another,

with the intention (in either case) of inducing in some other person a belief that it is likely to explode or ignite and thereby cause personal injury or damage to property is guilty of an offence.

In this subsection "article" includes substance.

(2) A person who communicates any information which he knows or believes to be false to another person with the intention of inducing in him or any other person a false belief that a bomb or other thing liable to explode or ignite is present in any place or location whatever is guilty of an offence.

(3) For a person to be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above it is not necessary for him to have any particular person in mind as the person in whom he intends to induce the belief mentioned in that subsection.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding £1,000, or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years."

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2

OFFENCES TRIABLE EITHER WAY BY INSTEAD OF ONLY ON INDICTMENT

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 47, line 15, leave out "sending letters threatening to murder" and insert "threats to kill".

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3

OFFENCES TRIABLE EITHER WAY BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 16(1) OR (2)

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 49, line 20, leave out "sending letters threatening to murder" and insert "threatens to kill".

Orders of the Day — Schedule 9

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 75, line 40, at end insert—

"OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 (c, 100)

For section 16 (sending letters threatening to murder) substitute—

"Threats to kill

16. A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that that other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years."."

6.30 p.m.

Mr. John: I beg to move, That this House do not insist upon its first amendment on page 29, line 42 and agree with the Lords in their amendments proposed in lieu.
The right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) moved on Report an amendment dealing with threats to kill. In drafting a new provision we have had an opportunity to incorporate several improvements in the drafting which were suggested by the Criminal Law Revision Committee. The provision is without prejudice to the final thoughts of the Committee when it produces its report on offences against the person.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 10 to 13 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — New Clause

AMENDMENTS OF OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS ACT 1959 WITH RESPECT TO CINEMATOGRAPH EXHIBITIONS

The Lords have agreed to the third amendment made by the Commons in—

Page 29, line 42, at end insert new clause:

".—(1) In the proviso to section 1(3) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (which excludes from the scope of that Act anything done in the course of a cinematograph exhibition taking place otherwise than in a private house to which the public are not admitted and anything done in the course of television or sound broadcasting) the words from "a cine

matograph exhibition" to "in the course of" shall he omitted.

(2) In section 2 of that Act (prohibition of publication of obscene matter) at the end of subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(3A) Proceedings for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions in any case where the relevant publication or the only other publication which followed or could reasonably have been expected to follow from the relevant publication took place or (as the case may be) was to take place in the course of a cinematograph exhibition: and in this subsection "the relevant publication" means—

(a) in the case of any proceedings under this section for publishing an obscene article, the publication in respect of which the defendant would be charged if the proceedings were brought; and
(b) in the case of any proceedings under this section for having an obscene article for publication for gain, the publication which, if the proceedings were brought, the defendant would be alleged to have had in contemplation.".

(3) In section 2 of that Act after subsection
(4) there shall be inserted the following sub-section—
(4A) Without prejudice to subsection
(4) above, a person shall not be proceeded against for an offence at common law—

(a) in respect of a cinematograph exhibition or anything said or done in the course of a cinematograph exhibition, where it is of the essence of the common law offence that the exhibition or, as the case may be, what was said or done was obscene, indecent, offensive, disgusting or injurious to morality; or
(b)in respect of an agreement to give a cinematograph exhibition or to cause anything to be said or done in the course of such an exhibition where the common law offence consists of conspiring to corrupt public morals or to do any act contrary to public morals or decency.".

(4) At the end of section 2 of that Act there shall be added the following subsection—
(7) In this section "cinematograph exhibition" means an exhibition of moving pictures produced on a screen by means which include the projection of light.".

(5) In section 3 of that Act (which among other things makes provision for the forfeiture of obscene articles kept for publication for gain) at the beginning of subsection (3) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (3A) of this section" and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(3A) Without prejudice to the duty of a court to make an order for the forfeiture of an article where section 1(4) of the Obscene Publications Act 1964 applies (orders made on conviction), in a case where by virtue of subsection (3A) of section 2 of this Act


proceedings under the said section 2 for having an article for publication for gain could not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, no order for the forfeiture of the article shall be made under this section unless the warrant under which the article was seized was issued on an information laid by or on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions.".

(6) In section 4 of that Act (defence of public good) at the beginning of subsection (1) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (I A) of this section" and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply where the article in question is a moving picture film or soundtrack, but—

(a) a person shall not be convicted of an offence against section 2 of this Act in relation to any such film or soundtrack, and
(b) an order for forfeiture of any such film or soundtrack shall not be made under section 3 of this Act,

if it is proved that publication of the film or soundtrack is justified as being for the public good on the ground that it is in the interests of drama, opera, ballet or any other art, or of literature or learning.".

(7) At the end of section 4 of that Act there shall be added the following subsection—
(3) In this section "moving picture soundtrack" means any sound record designed for playing with a moving picture film, whether incorporated with the film or not.".

With the following amendment No. 14: after "where" in subsection (3A), insert
the article in question is a moving picture film of a width of not less than sixteen millimetres and

Mr. John: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
When we discussed this matter on Report the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) raised an anxiety relating to the giving of the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the work load which might be imposed upon him in consequence of the clauses then proposed. The amendment will have the effect of avoiding the Director's having to be involved in giving consent every time 8 mm films, as opposed to films of 16 mm and above, are involved. The police can then seize on their own initiative and own warrant 8 mm films.
This will not avoid the benefit which I believe we conferred upon the film industry by bringing the showing of films

within the Obscene Publications Acts. At the same time, I believe that it avoids a great deal of the work load which we might have imposed upon the Director had we continued with the unqualified width of film.

Sir Michael Havers: I cannot resist at least saying that it is nice to be found to be right once. I was rather shot down when I raised this point on Report. The Minister told me that he totally disagreed with me. The only other thing that I am waiting for is an invitation to hospitality from the Director's staff for all the work I have saved them.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 43

New Clause

RIGHT TO HAVE SOMEONE INFORMED WHEN ARRESTED

The Lords agree to the amendment made by the Commons in—

After Clause 47

Page 37, line 12, at end insert new clause:
Where any person has been arrested, other than under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1976, and is being held in custody in a police station or other premises, he shall be entitled to have intimation of his arrest and of the place where he is being held sent to a person of his choosing.

with the following amendments:

No. 16, leave out
other than under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1976".
No. 17, leave out
a person of his choosing
and insert
one person reasonably named by him, without delay or, where some delay is necessary in the interest of the investigation or prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders, with no more delay than is so necessary.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in Lords Amendment No. 16.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords Amendment No. 17 and the proposed amendment to it standing in the name of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), in line 1, leave out from first 'delay' to end.

Mr. Rees: The clause which is the subject of these amendments was moved on Report by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and was added to the Bill against Government advice. I indicated then that while, in the Government's view, this was a matter which should be left to the Royal Commission on pre-trial procedures, I nevertheless recognised the strength of feeling in all parts of the House and wished to respond to it.
These amendments were moved by my noble Friend the Minister of State in another place. I believe that they preserve the spirit of the clause moved by my hon. Friend while removing the risk that it will add to the difficulties which the police already face in dealing with crime and in bringing offenders to justice.
7.30 p.m.
The amendments make four changes in the original clause. First, they remove the exception referring to persons arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, so that the clause applies to such persons as well as to those arrested under other powers. I hope that this will be welcome, although I fully understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was doing in the first instance. Secondly, it is proposed that the intimation should be sent "without delay". This is in response to the point made on Report and acknowledged by my hon. Friend—namely, that no requirement

as to the urgency of the intimation was included in his original clause.
Thirdly, the intimation is to be sent to "one person reasonably named" by the arrested person. I shall briefly explain the concept which lies behind that phrase. The object is to avoid the embarrassing possibility of the police apparently being required by law to notify, for example, someone outside the categories that one would expect. In the way the clause is now worded, they would have to telephone anyone who was named. Surely that would be wrong. The person named might be a football player or a pop star. That would bring the provision into disrepute with the police and, I think, more generally.
I considered whether it would be possible to list the categories of person who might reasonably be named. I do not think that that can be done without drawing up a very long list. I think that right hon. and hon. Members will realise the sort of people who are concerned—for example, lawyers, community workers, Members of Parliament, neighbours or members of the family. Further guidance will be given in the circular to the police that the Home Office proposes to issue when the provision comes into force. When the circular is sent out I shall ensure that it is published in Hansard. That will meet a point that my hon. Friend felt very strongly about even before my time at the Home Office.

Mr. Carlisl: Presumably "reasonably named" covers a solicitor. Apparently we do not have to have the name of the person.

Mr. Rees: No; a solicitor. That is a matter that I shall consider before the circular is issued. There is a wide range of persons whom it would be appropriate for people to have the right to contact. I shall put those categories into the circular.
Fourth, the amendments have the effect of enabling the police to delay sending the intimation if that is necessary in the interest of the investigation, prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders for so long as those considerations apply, but no longer. I fully understand that this is the most important of the changes effected by the amendments. It is necessary because an absolute and unqualified right of the


kind proposed in my hon. Friend's original clause would impose a serious handicap on the police in dealing with crime.
In the vast majority of cases, there will be no reason for keeping a person in police custody incommunicado. However, in legislating we must cater not only for the general run of cases but for exceptional cases. The Association of Chief Police Officers felt very strongly about this issue. It contacted me and said that if the clause remained as it is worded it would mean that the fight of its members against crime would be made extremely difficult. I received representations from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who is from Scotland, where a different system is operated. The Commissioner feels that, if the clause remains as it stands, the job of his officers to combat crime in a number of important cases will be made extremely difficult.
I have a list of cases before me. I do not want to weary the House by reciting the complete list but I shall take one or two examples. Perhaps the House will take my word that there are other examples. The police could be dealing with a kidnapping case. They may have arrested one of the offenders without recovering the victim or being aware of his or her whereabouts. In such a case, premature information would be a mistake. We must balance civil liberties on the one hand with the need to deal with cases of that sort. Other examples are Customs cases and drug carrying. I feel sure that I am right, as it was right in another place, to table the amendment. There must be some delay in a number of cases, but I propose to make arrangements for monitoring the new provision.
First, I must ask Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary—

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I appreciate that the monitoring proposals to which my right hon. Friend has referred will be of some help, but is he aware that it is the practice of the police in many circumstances to refuse access to solicitors in trivial or minor cases? It is their practice to refuse to allow solicitors to interview those who have been held in a police station on the ground that to do so would delay or impede inquiries. The clause that we now have provides no real protection, because

in every case where the police wish to have any reason to refuse they can always say that the provisions in the clause are applicable. Would it not have been possible and practicable for my right hon. Friend to have made provision for the police, in circumstances where they wish to refuse these rights, to make application to a magistrate? In the majority of cases of serious crime there will have been a warrant, but in other cases where there has been summary arrest the police could make an application to a magistrate.

Mr. Rees: In answer to my hon. Friend, I make one point that perhaps I should have made before developing my argument. In the declaratory clause it is still the case that the Judges Rules apply. The administrative direction still applies. It is in seeking to carry out the wishes of the House that this provision comes in addition to the Judges Rules.

Mr. Christopher Price: My right hon. Friend will be aware that he has drawn in different language the amendment which was passed in another place, and apparently in somewhat wider language than the Judges Rules, which talk about hindrances to the process of investigation or the administration of justice, whereas the clause contains three categories—namely, the investigation of crime, the prevention of crime and the apprehension of offenders. Is there any significance in the new wording?

Mr. Rees: I must tell my hon. Friend that because of the tightness of the Session I had to consider these matters in only two days. I had in mind that the Royal Commission was set up to look into the deeper significances and deeper problems. I considered the point about a magistrate and after much discussion, which continued for a long time, I felt that I could not take that course in the short term. It is not something that I can do in the Home Office without consulting magistrates and others. It is not a matter of having an idea in an office and putting it into practice. There may be something in what my hon. Friend has suggested, and I am sure that his suggestion will be considered by the Royal Commission. But I have to work in the short term.
As for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden


(Mr. Douglas-Mann), there is no great significance in what is being done except in one sense. It is true that the Judges Rules are still with us. It was put to me in the House that people did not care about the Judges Rules. The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made that point. What we are seeking to do outside the Judges Rules is to put something in statute law that in this instance is declaratory—namely, to allow someone to contact someone outside the police station or wherever he is held. Therefore, we thought of the wording in a different context from the Judges Rules, which are capable of being taken into account in the trial.
First, I have asked the Chief Inspector of Constabulary to ensure that in their examinations of complaints registers Her Majesty's inspectors pay special attention to any complaints about the police operation of the clause. However, there must be more monitoring than that. That is why I am discussing with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and other chief officers how we can do something on top of that. I have in mind that, in cases where there is a delay, notification will have to be made to me and that this information should be collated.
I shall hope to find a way of informing the House so that in the short run it should be possible to say that there have been X number of cases recently. Of course, that will depend on the nature of the cases and whether they have gone to court. We would monitor the situation. I think that that would meet the point made by one of my hon. Friends.
On Report, two points were put to me. I was told that there was no problem in the Birmingham area. Other examples were also put to me of people not being allowed to get in touch with their relatives or solicitors. even when the cases were unimportant. The amendment includes the words
in the interest of the … prevention of crime".
This applies to important cases. We shall find out in the short run the number of cases involved to enable us to get it right. If it is blatantly wrong, I shall have to do something about it. If it needs investigation over a longer term,

the Royal Commission is the appropriate body to consider it.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I have the greatest confidence in the Home Secretary, but, with respect, he will not be Home Secretary for all time.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Why not?

Mr. Lewis: Because age creeps up on all of us—even on this great Home Secretary. On Report my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) referred to a chap who had two or three inquiries. What happened? The Home Secretary said "I am not publishing the report." We cannot do anything about that. What will happen when we have another Home Secretary? This does not apply to my right hon. Friend. He will say "I am not going to give the information." I do not have as much confidence in all Home Secretaries as I have in my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Rees: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's confidence in me. I need not go into the details of the case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). That inquiry was set up to give information to the Director of Public Prosecutions. People gave evidence and they were clearly told that, under the normal procedures, it would not be published. That is a different example.
What I am saying is that, despite the Judges Rules—some of my hon. Friends did not take account of the Judges Rules, but that is another matter—the House wanted something done in this respect. I have tried to accede to that request. I had to protect the unusual situation. The matter will be monitored to ensure that this reservation is kept to the unusual situation. I suggest that an arrangement which allows a criminal in certain circumstances to contact somebody outside may be to the detriment of the public generally, and we should be wrong to allow it to happen. I have tried to balance civil rights with unusual cases. What I want to find out from the monitoring is whether it can be confined to the unusual cases. I shall find a way of reporting to the House, and the circular which I propose to issue will be published in Hansard so that all hon. Members may see it.

Mr. Christopher Price: I realise that we want to move on. I do not propose to detain the House too long on this amendment.
I have tabled amendments to Lords Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. Therefore, I take it that it is proper for me to move them at this stage, unless I am directed otherwise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should inform the lion. Member that his amendment to Lords Amendment No. 16 has not been selected. The appropriate time to move the amendment to Lords Amendment No. l7 is when we have disposed of Lords Amendment No. 16. We are taking them together, but the Question on his amendment will not be put till we have disposed of Lords Amendment No. 16.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Price: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I think that we should discuss this matter a little further. I tabled my amendments because I felt that when the House on Report passed the amendment against the Government's advice—that is unusual; it happens infrequently—it did so in the full knowledge that it was trying to create for someone who had been arrested an unqualified right to inform someone of his choice.
My objection to the Lords Amendment No. 17 is that it puts us back to square one regarding the behaviour of the police. The amendment would put back the words
where some delay is necessary in the interest of the investigation or prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders, with no more delay than is so necessary.
That gives a carte blanche to the police that they already possess in the Judges' Rules to decide on the spot to deny the right of information to a relative.
I appreciate the strenuous efforts made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to meet what he admitted was a genuine cross-party feeling in the House, but I think that this amendment in a sense misses the point. On Report we suggested that there should be an unqualified right for a person to let somebody know that he had been arrested and where he was. The police say that they do not want anything to be done that

would make their job of preventing crime more difficult than it is. I think that the words
one person reasonably named by him
go a long way to meet the point made by the police. If someone nominates a known criminal, I consider that under this clause the police would have every right to say "No, we shall not tell him."

Mr. George Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend mean that the police would be able to do that by invoking the word "reasonably" rather than the qualification? If so, I disagree.

Mr. Price: We can discuss the meaning of the word "reasonably" throughout the rest of the debate. I think that the word "reasonably" gives the police a degree of latitude as to who should be told. For example, the Home Secretary said that it would be unreasonable to tell a pop star. On Report, the Archbishop of Canterbury was mentioned as being an unreasonable person to be nominated. I believe that the police would also have the right to say "No, that is an unreasonable person to be told" if they knew that the person to be told to be someone who would immediately and directly impede any inquiries that they were pursuing.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have revealed the discussions I have had, and I believe that in terms of the practicalities we should proceed in the way that I have indicated. What does one say to a policeman in a case that may not be under the prevention of terrorism legislation, where the link with the arrested person's wife might mean that weapons or drugs in a house could be removed? Is my hon. Friend saying that in that case the police could reasonably say "No, we shall not tell the family"?

Mr. Price: Surrounded as I am by a host of lawyers it is difficult for me to give an absolute definition of the legal meaning of the words, but I would have thought that if my amendment had been selected, to restore the clause to the state in which it left this House, the point that my right hon. Friend has just made about bombs would not apply.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: What about drugs?

Mr. Price: If the police felt that the person to be told was in a position immediately to hinder investigations I


would have thought so. I do not wish to pursue that point.
I come now to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about the circular and the monitoring procedure. What particularly concerns me in this sort of procedure is that, in certain police stations in the Metropolitan area, to be allowed to inform somebody that one has been arrested is the exception rather than the rule. Few people would deny that. I very much hope that if my right hon. Friend is framing a circular based on this clause to send to the police, as he says he is, he will include in that circular some advice particularly about juvenile and young people. In the recent arrests in Lewisham a number of allegations were made—we shall see whether they are proved or not—that young people whose average age was 16 and who in many cases were under 16 were held for 48 hours without their parents discovering where they were. That sort of case was mentioned time and again at Report stage. We feel that it is our duty in this House to provide some absolute safeguards in such cases, even though the police might feel that by providing these safeguards we were in some way hindering the administration of justice.
My right hon. Friend also referred to monitoring. I am glad that he is not simply going to restrict the monitoring to the monitoring of complaints procedures, because that would be inadequate. In regard to the notification procedures that my right hon. Friend is about to set up, I noted the form of words that my right hon. Friend used. He said that discussions were going on. There was no absolute pledge that this would take place.
I hope that in the notification procedures some information can be given to the House not only about total numbers but the ages of the people arrested, so that we can at least have some statistics about young people and juveniles in this area. I hope that those statistics will be presented to the House not just as raw statistics but in a form that will mean something not only to hon. Members but to the Royal Commission. The difficulty that we all have in discussions about this problem is that there are no statistics. My hon. Friends talk about Birmingham

and about Scotland, but we cannot say that we think that this or that is the case when no one has any real hard statistics about police practice in this area.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I think that my hon. Friend and I know that statistics are already available at the moment but that the Establishment often uses the hoary old saying that to provide the statistics would take too much time and effort or would involve disproportionate costs and, therefore, the information cannot be revealed. We all know that the information is there, but the Establishment does not want to reveal it because it would damage the Establishment.

Mr. Price: I agree that that is the case in a wide area, but in this case I believe that there are no statistics. Nobody knows, and some people do not want anyone to know. It is our job in the House to insist on this.
My final point is about Scotland. The point was made throughout Report that if this system works in Scotland, where the criminal population is no greater or no less than in England and Wales—although perhaps it is a little greater—why cannot we have this unqualified right in England to inform someone? I know that in Scotland the person informed is a solicitor, not a person "reasonably" chosen. Why cannot it be an unqualified right? I am not saying that the law works perfectly in Scotland. I would not be surprised if there were cases in which the police do not allow other people to be informed, but at least the provision is written into the law, and there is some sanction if the police ignore it. If my amendment is passed, I am not saying that the police would always take notice of it or that they would not decide to ignore it from time to time.
However, it is peculiarly the job of the House of Commons to write this sort of absolute safeguard into the law because we alone, as Members of Parliament—rather than the civil servants who draft these Bills and have to take a whole range of considerations into account—can write these safeguards into the law. That is why I am inclined to press this amendment, but before making any decision I would like to hear a little more


about the detailed nature of the monitoring procedure.

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask you to clarify the selection of amendments. I understood you to say that the reference in the selection list to the amendment—in my copy of the selection list it is in the singular—is to "amendment thereto" and the only amendment is to Lords Amendment No. 17. Is that correct?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The amendment that has been selected is the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) to Lords Amendment No. 17.

Mr. Cunningham: Can I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is a rather curious thing to do, because the effect of my hon. Friend's two amendments together is to restore the language to what was passed by this House. If one selects the second amendment but not the first, what one does is to knock out the qualification but retain the applicability of my original clause to cases under terrorism as well as cases not under terrorism. If that is the selection that has been made it is a pretty daft one.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am utterly and completely puzzled by the selection of amendments. My two amendments were an effort to allow the House to take a decision roughly on the lines of the decision which was taken on Report. The selection of amendments, however, appears calculated to prevent the House from doing that. I do not understand why that selection has taken place. I am in a difficult position about whether to press my amendment, because one amendment without the other does not provide the sort of combination that anyone here wants.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the Government are moving to agree. The hon. Gentleman is moving to disagree.

Mr. Christopher Price: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I consulted the Public Bill Office I was instructed that although I wanted to put everything in one amendment, for House of Commons purposes I must follow the form now set out involving two

amendments. Nevertheless, the intention was quite clear.

Mr. George Cunningham: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that the first amendment is not necessary and that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) will be able to achieve its result simply by voting against the Government proposal to disagree with it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is absolutely correct.

Mr. Cunningham: I apologise then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for starting that hare.
I wish to pay tribute to the manner in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have responded in the last fortnight or so to what was done on Report. I have had a number of altercations with Ministers in my brief time in this House, and I have made a number of efforts to get them to do what they did not want to do. The manner in which my right hon. and hon. Friends have responded both to what happened on Report and to representations that I made afterwards is a model of how Ministers ought to react to that type of situation.
I am particularly grateful to the Government for having accepted both suggestions, namely, that a circular should be issued—for what that is worth, which is not a great deal, but it is worth something—and, far more important, that a monitoring process should take place throughout England and Wales. That is very important, because it means that the police will get the message that there is a new regime. However much the wording of this provision looks like and is like the wording of the Judges' Rules, something different has happened. They will have to answer now in a way in which they did not have to before for the use of the qualification.
I have two points to put to my right hon. Friend. The first follows upon a point put by the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). He asked whether it would be sufficient to ask for an unnamed solicitor or, presumably, a firm of solicitors, without a personal name, to be informed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that his understanding was that that would count as a "person reasonably named". Am I right in thinking that the words used would


also cover notification of an organisation such as the National Council for Civil Liberties, so that if someone asked for the NCCL to be informed that would be covered by the words "person reasonably named"? I am grateful to see my right hon. Friend nod his head in agreement with that.
My right hon. Friend has assured us that the circular he proposes to issue will not only be popped in to the Library in the normal way but will be printed in Hansard. Will he go further? The circular which he would issue on this subject would not have a statutory basis. It would not be subject to affirmative or negative resolution in the House. Given the history of this case, I suggest that it would be possible for him to have informal consultation with those hon. Members who have taken an interest in the matter—in so far as he is able to identify them, and I do not think that he will have great difficulty there—before the circular is actually issued. There is nothing more galling than to find that a circular has been sent out and then to succeed in persuading the Minister that something is wrong with it. Although he would have agreed to change it before the circular had gone out, that would be infinitely more difficult to do afterwards. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree to such consultation once he has the text of the circular clear in his mind.

Mr. Graham Page: I hope that in that circular the Home Secretary will not include encouragement to the person in custody reasonably to name his Member of Parliament. The Home Secretary mentioned that point during his speech, and I fear that he will encourage the practice.

Mr. Cunningham: I join in that exhortation. I have no wish to be reasonably so named by a large number of people in my constituency.
I am glad to notice that the text of my original clause has survived to a considerable extent notwithstanding the scorn that was poured upon it from the Front Bench and from a number of other quarters. In particular I notice that the word "intimation", which I was assured would not be comprehensible to an English lawyer, turns out to be comprehensible

not only to a lawyer but also to every policeman. The word I used on that occasion to describe my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's remarks—a word which did not find its way into Hansard—has turned out to be justified.
The drafting of the amendment leaves something to be desired in respect of the phrase "reasonably named". That phrase stuck in my throat when I read it because I could not quite see what the point of it was. The intention, I gather, is to avoid use of such names as Walt Disney and Santa Claus. But I wonder whether that meaning will be obvious to people who are using the circular. That is one point that I hope the Secretary of State will clear up in the circular.
The amended text would, I believe, be adequate for all purposes if the police operated it genuinely and honestly. The trouble is that we are all fearful that they will not, and that, seeing language which is so similar to that which is used in the Judges' Rules—

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I hope that on reflection the hon. Member will not say that we are all fearful, because some of us do not think that the police are always wrong. Perhaps in that respect the hon. Member will refer to "most" hon. Members.

Mr. Cunningham: I know no one who believes that the police are always wrong. I do not think there is any such person. Do not let us exaggerate the differences which exist between hon. Members, especially on this issue, which is very much a joint effort from all parts of the House.
The monitoring process will be important in ensuring that whatever abuse of the qualification has taken place hitherto, the same abuse will not take place in the future, however much the language of the qualification is similar to the language used in the Judges' Rules.
My right hon. Friend, speaking tonight, and my noble Friend the Minister of State in the Lords, gave examples of situations in which it was thought right for the qualification to be invoked. There was no reference to the time during which notification might be withheld. It is important to cover that aspect in the circular. It is one thing to say that we shall not send out a message in 24 hours


and, in a very unusual case, 48 hours, but it would be entirely different for a message to be held back for a matter of days on the pretence—and perhaps it would he true—that sending out the message would seriously impede investigation.
There is one good point to be noted about the language of the qualification. It is the word "justiciable". The qualification does not state that the message does not need to be sent out if the police consider that there will be an impediment but that the message does not need to be sent out if there is an impediment.
For the purposes of the Royal Commission it is important for us to clear our minds, as we were starting to do on Report, about the conceptual difference between the Judges' Rules and provisions such as this. The Home Office circular covering the Judges' Rules states:
As is made clear by the Judges, the Rules are concerned with the admissibility in evidence against a person of answers, oral or written, given by that person to questions asked by police officers and of statements made by that person.
That is the rôle of the Judges' Rules. It has nothing to do with the behaviour which we may wish to make a statutory obligation. The two things are parallel. They duplicate. There is nothing wrong with their duplicating. We should take into statute those things which we want to make an obligation and leave the Judges' Rules to deal with the extent to which any breaches of the actions stated in the Rules can be taken into account when deciding whether evidence is admissible.
On the monitoring process, given the clause passed on Report, it was clear that the majority was found only because the House was prepared to accept that changes of this nature would be made in the Lords. Personally, I find that the text, as it has emerged from the Lords, is acceptable. I propose to accept the Lords' text and to vote against the amendments to it.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I intend to be brief. Fulsome tributes do not flow often from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I hope that it means that he will be translated to the Home Office in due course, both for his own sake

and for that of the Home Office, because it would do them both a power of good. I am sorry that my hon. Friend takes the attitude he does to the amendment moved in the Lords. This is no further advance on the Judges' Rules, because the words that we are moving to omit give the police the same kind of cover for refusing access either to a solicitor or anyone else, that are contained in the Judges' Rules. They will have the same effect.
I do not believe that monitoring will add anything to the position in the Judges' Rules. I do not believe that once the police officer says—expletive deleted—"You are not going to get your husband, your solicitor or anyone else informed about your presence here", the officer will make out a Home Office form in duplicate and sign that he has broken the rules of this provision. It is nonsense to believe that in the world in which the police live within their stations that they will keep a record of the number of times people are refused access to a relative or solicitor.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon), knowing the inside of my local police station. Does that mean that he does not take seriously the forthright words of my right hon. Friend when he says that in future the whole attitude will change and that the police will till in these forms so that we shall know how many are denied access?

Mr. Lyon: My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) must recollect that in addition to the Judges' Rules there is the Home Office circular which underlines the need for a solicitor to be called when an accused asks for him. He must remember that that provision was introduced by a Home Office that presumably was interested in civil liberties. A fat lot of good that has done. Even if the provison is contained in legislation it will not change the situation.
Each time the police want to refuse access they will say that to inform a solicitor will impede the investigation of the crime. If they do have to record it, they will do so in those terms. It is impossible for the Home Office or anyone else to monitor that.
I am sure that my rght hon. Friend is acting in good faith but he has conceded the case because of pressure from the police. It is nonsense to tell a criminal that it would undermine the course of justice to tell his wife, solicitor or anyone else that he is detained in a police station.
The lie was given by Lord Mansfield who said that to most of us it seemed intolerable that one could be taken to a police station and not be able to ring a solicitor. Of course, to the middle class that would be intolerable, but to a criminal it might not appear so, because he is not given the chance to inform anyone else. That situation will not be altered by this proposal.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon). Nevertheless, I am not completely happy to leave the matter without qualification. There are circumstances in which it may be desirable for the police to hold up notification. But we need to have some mechanism.
Faced with the choice of this clause or accepting the amendment I prefer to accept the amendment in the confidence that the Government will introduce some legislation on the lines outlined by the Home Secretary that will provide a mechanism that will indicate those cases where an exception is required. I would rather do that than leave the matter where it stands and not have legislation for years until the Royal Commission has reported. I hope that my hon. Friends will press the amendment and that my colleagues will support them.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: There is a problem for the prosecuting process. I believe that the Royal Commission examining the many aspects is the right way to proceed.
As a result of the feeling in the House we have made a move. I do not accept that in the majority of cases criminals are not allowed to get in touch with anybody. I hope that if my hon. Friend has evidence to that effect he will give it to me. I do not find that that is so. It is not true that in most cases people are not allowed to get in touch with someone.
I hope this matter will not be pressed. We have made a start. I shall have the

circular printed in Hansard. I am discussing the matter with the police. It is my responsibility to consult. In most cases I discuss with hon. Members in many parts of the House in order to obtain their views. In that sense consultation will take place.
With regard to the circular, there is a problem about juveniles. I have taken the point about organisations as well. On the monitoring, I do not want to set up a vast statistical body. What I want to do is to get the information that will be relevant to the Royal Commission and to the way in which it is proceeding. Discussions are taking place. We had to rush this. I do not complain about that. I am discussing this matter with various interests, because that is the way to proceed. That is why I have not made up my mind. However, I believe that we have the right solution at this stage. I hope that on all sides of the House the Government will be supported.

Mr. Christopher Price: With the leave of the House—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Price: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether I could, in one sentence, clarify what appeared to be a muddle but was not?

Mr. Nigel Lawson: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the difficulty of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). However, he can address the House only by leave. Perhaps I can help him by saying that he has a course of action that he may need to take, which I think he understands, and which I think the House understands in this particular matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 17, in line 3, leave out "a person of his choosing" and insert
one person reasonably named by him, without delay or, where some delay is necessary in the interest of the investigation or prevention of crime or the apprehension of offenders, with no more delay than is so necessary.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]

Amendment proposed to the lards amendment, leave out from first "delay" to end.—[Mr. Chistopher Price.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 68 Noes 242.

Division No. 226]
AYES
[8.22 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Heffer, Eric S.
Parry, Robert


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Pendry, Tom


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) 
Phipps, Dr Colin


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P) 
Janner, Greville
Prescott, John


Canavan, Dennis
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Carmichael, Nell
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Lamond, James
Robinson, Geoffrey


Clemitson, Ivor
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rooker, J. W.


Corbett Robin
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Rose, Paul B.


Crawshaw, Richard
Litterick, Tom
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Skinner, Dennis


Edge, Geoff
McDonald, Dr Oonaqh
Spriggs, Leslie


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


English, Michael
McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Evans, John (Newton)
Madden, Max
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Flannery, Martin
Mendelson, John
Torney, Tom


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Weitzman, David


Forrester, John
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Moate, Roger



Fry, Peter
Molloy, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Newens, Stanley
Mr. Ian Mikardo and


Hayman, Mrs Helena
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann.




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Davidson, Arthur
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Denzil (Llaneili)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hooley, Frank


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Deakins, Eric
Hooson, Emlyn


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Horam, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dempsey, James
Huckfield, Les


Banks, Robert
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bates, Alf
Drayson, Burnaby
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Bean, R. E.
Dunnett, Jack
Hunter, Adam


Beith, A. J.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Bell, Ronald
Durant, Tony
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dykes, Hugh
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Eadie, Alex
John, Brynmor


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Boardman, H.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ennals, David
Judd, Frank


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Kaufman, Gerald


Bottomley, RI Hon Arthur
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Bottomley, Peter
Fairgrieve, Russell
Kimball, Marcus


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lamborn, Harry


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lamont, Norman


Bradley, Tom
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Brittan, Leon
Ford, Ben
Lawrence, Ivan


Brooke, Peter
Fox, Marcus
Lawson, Nigel


Brotherton, Michael
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Freeson, Reginald
Le Marchant, Spencer


Buchanan, Richard
Freud, Clement
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fry, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Gilbert, Dr John
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Campbell, Ian
Ginsburg, David
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Carter, Ray
Glyn, Dr Alan
McCartney, Hugh


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
McElhone, Frank


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Golding, John
Macfarlane, Nell


Clegg, Walter
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Graham, Ted
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Cohen, Stanley
Grant, George (Morpeth)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Conlan, Bernard
Grant, John (Islington C)
Maclennan, Robert


Cowans, Harry
Gray, Hamish
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Grist, Ian
Magee, Bryan


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Grocott, Bruce
Mahon, Simon


Cronin, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Marks, Kenneth


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hardy, Peter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)




Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Raison, Timothy
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Mawby, Ray
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mayhew, Patrick
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Meacher, Michael
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tierney, Sydney


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Tinn, James


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Robinson, Geoffrey
Tuck, Raphael


Mills, Peter
Roderick, Caerwyn
Urwin, T. W.


Miscampbell, Norman
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Roper, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Moonman, Eric
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Morgan, Geraint
Ryman, John
Wall, Patrick


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Sainsbury, Tim
Ward, Michael


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Sandelson, Neville
Warren, Kenneth


Moyle, Roland
Selby, Harry
Watkins, David


Mudd, David
Shersby, Michael
Watkinson, John


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Neubert, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wellbeloved, James


Noble, Mike
Sims. Roger
While, Frank R. (Bury)


Oakes, Gordon
Skeet, T. H. H.
White, James (Pollok)


Ogden, Eric
Small, William
Wiggin, Jerry


O'Halloran, Michael
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Onslow, Cranley
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Snape, Peter
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Speed, Keith
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Osborn, John
Spence, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ovenden, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Stallard, A. W.
Woodall, Alec


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Steel, Rt Hon David
Woof, Robert


Palmer, Arthur
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Futham)



Pavitt, Laurie
Stoddart, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Penhaligon, David
Stott, Roger
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Pink, R. Bonner
Strang, Gavin
Mr. Joseph Harper.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 6

INCREASE OF FINES FOR CERTAIN SUMMARY OFFENCES

The Lords agree to the amendment made by the Commons in—

Page 61, line 14, at end insert—

"HIGHWAYS ACT 1959 (C. 25)

Offences under section 119(3) (failure to make good surface of a public path after ploughing).

with the following amendments—

Lords amendment: No. 18, after "section 119(4)(b)", in column 2, insert
(as amended by Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 1967)

Lords amendment: No. 19, leave out "119(3)" in column 1 and insert "119 (4)(b)".

Mr. John: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the sail amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 22.

Mr. John: You will be relieved, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to know that the amendments

Section 119(4)(b) £50 £200"

are no great matters of principle but merely incorporate drafting and consequential amendments upon the increase in fine under Section 119(4)(b) of the Highways Act 1959 which was accepted by the House on Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 agreed to.

Schedule 10

REPEALS

The Lords disagree to the Commons amendment in page 92,lin 55, column 3, for the following Reason—

Lords Amended No. 21: Because it is inadvisable to fetter the discretion of the Court when dealing with offenders aged between 17 and 21 years.

Mr. John: I beg to move, That this House doth insist on its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 21disagreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 22 agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Alf Bates, Sir Michael Havers, Mr. Ian Percival, Mr. Merlyn Rees and Mr. Brynmor John: Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. John.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

CONTROL OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT BILL

Lords amendment considered.

Clause 1

CONTINUANCE IN FORCE OF PROVISION RELATING TO CONTROL OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT

Lords amendment: In page 1, line 12, leave out "seventeen" and insert "fifteen".

8.35 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The motion is designed to restore to five years the period for which office control powers will be extended. The Lords amendment reduced the period to three years.
The original period of control was seven years. When the Conservative Government decided to renew it in 1972, they opted for a further period of five years. It seems sensible to follow that precedent in 1977.
Five years is a suitable interval for monitoring the operation of the control and reviewing its effects. A shorter period would create uncertainty in the property world and among local authorities in the areas subject to control. It would also involve promoting further legislation to renew control after an unreasonably short period of time if the control were still then required.
The need for the control will be kept continuously under review and under Section 86(1) of the 1971 Act as amended in 1972 the control powers may be brought to an end by Order in Council at any time before the end of the specified period. There is every justification, therefore, in insisting that the period should be five years.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The whole system of office development permits has few friends, and it is necessary to remind the House of one or two facts in suggesting that we ought not to disagree with the Lords.
Both parties in the Greater London Council have called for the abolition of ODPs—in October 1976 under Labour


control, and in June 1977 under Conservative control, and on each occasion there was party unanimity. That is the first matter which should be made clear.
It is also right to point out that in 1976 the Government published the Office Location Review, which was prepared by an inter-departmental team of officials. The review noted that the principal reason for introducing office control in 1964 had been the view that, without it, employment in London would continue to increase rapidly, putting unmanageable pressures on transport and housing. It recognised that this no longer applied, with population and employment falling in London and with a steady fall in commuting into Central London over a number of years.
The review also acknowledged that the new structure plan system, reinforced by local government reorganisation, provided a better instrument than existed before for local authorities to achieve the objective of an appropriate distribution of office employment within the South-East Region. To that extent, it reduced the need to maintain ODP control for the purpose. The objective, which had been given more weight since 1974, was the encouragement of transfers of jobs to the assisted areas. The major constraint on this was the total supply of mobile jobs. Within this constraint, the review considered other factors which influenced firms and tended to militate against the objective.
Relocation involves costs; benefits are longer term. Common concerns are the willingness of key staff to accept the unheaval of moving—and one needs only to cite, for example, the attitude of civil servants following the Hardman Report on that—links with customers or supporting professional organisations, and good communications with Central London. Moves to the more distant assisted areas involve greater costs, for example, in staff travelling time if a considerable amount of contact needs to be maintained with Central London. Once outside Central London, savings from rent, rates and staff costs do not increase progressively with distance. The review therefore considered it likely that the main gain in office jobs for these areas would continue to come from indigenous

growth and that any increase in moves to them would be likely to consist largely of clerical jobs. That is a powerful argument for accepting the amendment.
I have quoted the unanimous view of the Greater London Council. In addition, as recently as 22nd June this year the London Boroughs Association maintained its view about ODPs and specifically pressed again for London to be exempted from any ODP control.
The House should have a brief history of what has happened in this game of squash, as I might describe it, because the ball has been hit to and fro. In Committee an amendment reducing the period was carried with the aid of a Liberal Member, who does not seem to be with us tonight. All his right hon. and hon. Friends are also absent. On Report the Government deleted the amendment, with the aid of the Liberal Party, whose spokesman then said that he did not think that his hon. Friend in Committee had understood what the problem was. With the greatest respect—if one needs to show any respect to the Liberal Party—Liberal Members understand nothing about big cities or the problems of ODPs, because none of them has the faintest relevance to city life. Perhaps, therefore, it is as well that they do not bother to attend this debate.
Their Lordships considered a different amendment, but still one with the effect of reducing the period during which control should last, and—surprise!—the Liberal Party there was split. Even its Front Bench was split. One of the noble Lords who voted for the amendment was a Liberal Front Bench spokesman. I do not think that the Lib-Lab pact worked effectively on that occasion. It is not certain that the Liberals really understood what the whole thing was about anyway.
The fact is that both Houses have taken different views. We wonder what is coming next in this Pearl White or Dick Barton saga. Alas, it looks unlikely that we shall discover what the Liberals intend to do on this occasion.
What is so sacred about 1982, the date when the Government want the power to expire? That is long after the time that this discredited Government can cling to office without facing the voters. Therefore, why are they so desperate to


prolong the period after they have disappeared from the scene? Perhaps a civil servant has told them—I do not apologise for repeating this suggestion, because it is a feeling that most hon. Members have—"Minister, there is a slot in the parliamentary timetable." That is because of the incompetence of the Leader of the House, who has lost his major business on devolution.
So incompetently has he managed the business that on virtually the last day of the Session nine different Bills and orders are put down for debate. Did a civil servant say "Take that slot, because if you don't it will be very difficult to obtain parliamentary time on another occasion"? That is obviously the advice that the Secretary of State has taken. He has done it in a charming way, but none the less he has taken it, and we are faced with having to waste our time prolonging the operation of the Bill way past 1980.
I hope that, on reflection, the House will accept the view of the other place that 1980 is the latest date to which control should continue under the present legislation. A Government can introduce a new Bill at any time. I still find it impossible to accept the need for continuing the control for a further five years. Certainly, the view about uncertainty in the property world and among local authorites is not shared by anyone working in those two areas with whom I have spoken. No one with whom I have discussed the matter has suggested that he would be in the least disturbed if the powers continued for two or three years instead of five. Therefore, unless the Minister can adduce evidence to the effect that it is causing great uncertainty the House must discount that as his assumption based, not on fact, but on theory.
8.45 p.m.
I hope that the House will agree that there is no reason for accepting the Government's view that we should throw out the Lords amendment. It would be nice if occasionally the Government felt able to bow to the wishes of another place—a view that was shared in the Standing Committee on which the Government had a majority. The fact that the Liberal Member voted with us when a Government Member was absent was not our fault. The Government should

occasionally be big enough to say "We accept the verdict". I hope that even now they will be prepared to do so on this occasion, although, looking at the Minister, I have grave doubts about it. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say, particularly about his assertion that uncertanty will be caused.

Mr. Guy Barnett: The lion. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) began by saying that ODP control had few friends. He said that both parties and the Greater London Council are opposed to ODP control, which I know. He said that many members of the London Boroughs Association are opposed to it. However, a number of hon. Members, including at least one Opposition Member who spoke on Second Reading, and several of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the regions, welcome the continuation of the control and the Government's determination to ensure that it is effective. What we propose, and what was proposed in the original Bill which was in line with the proposal of the previous Government, is that it should continue for five years, because unless it does I do not see how it can be effective.
The hon. Member for Hampstead trailed his political coat before us on this issue, and I do not propse to respond to what he said in that connection, but in view of what he said about an official in my Department, I make it clear that both the Secretary of State and myself accept full responsibility for wanting to replace in the Bill the period which we thought necessary. We thought it necessary because we believe that development control cannot be effective unless it is for a period of five years, bearing in mind the time that it takes to plan and build an office.
The great danger, which I have explained before, is that if control is renewed for two or three years the possibility is that an office developer will say, at a time when it is difficult enough to get office development going, "Given the state of the economy, if I wait a couple of years somebody will abolish it". The reinstatement of the period of five years is an earnest of the Government's intention to operate ODP control effectively in an endeavour to achieve a fair balance of office jobs in various parts of the country.
The hon. Member for Hampstead said that he did not understand how uncertainty would be caused among property developers and the local authorities. I do not know which local authorities he has been speaking to. If he were to speak to some authorities in the regions, he might get a different story. I have

explained why uncertainty could undoubtedly arise among property interests as a consequence of our not renewing the control for a reasonable time.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 235. Noes 179.

Division No. 227]
AYES
[8.48 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Maclennan, Robert


Anderson, Donald
Evans, John (Newton)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McNamara, Kevin


Armstrong, Ernest
Faulds, Andrew
Madden, Max


Ashton, Joe
Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ford, Ben
Marks, Kenneth


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Forrester, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Bates, Alf
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bean, R. E.
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Beith, A. J.
Freeson, Reginald
Meacher, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Freud, Clement
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mendelson, John


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Gilbert, Dr John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian


Boardman, H.
Golding, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Graham, Ted
Millen, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Grocott, Bruce
Molloy, William


Bradley, Tom
Hardy, Peter
Moonman, Eric


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Harper, Joseph
Moyle, Roland


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Newens, Stanley


Buchan Norman
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Noble, Mike


Buchanan, Richard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Oakes, Gordon


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hatton, Frank
Ogden, Eric


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
O'Halloran, Michael


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Heffer, Eric S.
Orbach, Maurice


Campbell, Ian
Hooley, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Canavan, Dennis
Hooson, Emlyn
Ovenden, John


Carmichael, Nell
Horam, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Carter, Ray
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Palmer, Arthur


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Huckfield, Les
Parker, John


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Pavitt, Laurie


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pendry, Tom


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Penhaligon, David


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Coleman, Donald
Hunter, Adam
Prescott, John


Conlan, Bernard
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jackson, Colln (Brighouse)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cowans, Harry
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Robinson, Geoffrey


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Crawshaw, Richard
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cronin, John
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rooker, J. W.


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Judd, Frank
Roper, John


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rose, Paul B.


Davidson, Arthur
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamborn, Harry
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lamond, James
Ryman, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Sandelson, Neville


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Leadbitter, Ted
Sedgemore, Brian


Deakins, Eric
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Selby, Harry


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dempsey, James
Litterick, Tom
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Doig, Peter
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dormand, J. D.
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Skinner, Dennis


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Small, William


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McCartney, Hugh
Snape, Peter


Eadie, Alex
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Spearing, Nigel


Edge, Geoff
McElhone, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stallard, A. W.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)




Stoddart, David
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Stott, Roger
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Strang, Gavin
Ward, Michael
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Watkins, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Watkinson, John
Woodall, Alec


Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Weitzman, David
Woof, Robert


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wellbeloved, James
Young, David (Bolton E)


Torney, Tom
White, Frank R. (Bury)



Tuck, Raphael
White, James (Pollok)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Urwin, T. W.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Mr. James Hamilton and


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Mr. James Tinn.


Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Hannam, John
Page, Richard (Workington)


Arnold, Tom
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Parkinson, Cecil


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Pattie, Geoffrey


Awdry, Daniel
Haselhurst, Alan
Pink, R. Bonner


Baker, Kenneth
Hawkins, Paul
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Banks, Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Bell, Ronald
Hicks, Robert
Raison, Timothy


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Higgins, Terence L.
Rathbone, Tim


Benyon, W.
Hordern, Peter
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Blaker, Peter
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bottomley, Peter
Hurd, Douglas
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridsdale, Julian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Jessel, Toby
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brittan, Leon
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brooke, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brotherton, Michael
Kimball, Marcus
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Buck, Antony
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Knox, David
Sainsbury, Tim


Carlisle, Mark
Lamont, Norman
Scott, Nicholas


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Churchill, W. S.
Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lawson, Nigel
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shepherd, Colin


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shersby, Michael


Clegg, Walter
Luce, Richard
Silvester, Fred


Cockcroft, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sims, Roger


Cope, John
McCrindle, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Costain, A. P.
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Crouch, David
MacGregor, John
Smith, Timothy (Ashfield)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Speed, Keith


Drayson, Burnaby
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Spence, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Durant, Tony
Marten, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Dykes, Hugh
Mates, Michael
Sproat, lain


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Maude, Angus
Stanley, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mawby, Ray
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Elliott, Sir William
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Emery, Peter
Mayhew, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fairgrieve, Russell
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Tapsell, Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mills, Peter
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Norman


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moate, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D.


Forman, Nigel
Monro, Hector
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Morgan, Geraint
Viggers, Peter


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wakeham, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wall, Patrick


Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Walters, Dennis


Goodhew, Victor
Mudd, David
Warren, Kenneth


Goodlad, Alastair
Neave, Airey
Weatherill, Bernard


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Nelson, Anthony
Wells, John


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Neubert, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Newton, Tony
Winterton, Nicholas


Gray, Hamish
Onslow, Cranley
Younger, Hon George


Grist, Ian
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally



Grylls, Michael
Osborn, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Hampson, Dr Keith
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Jim Lester.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment to the Bill: Mr. Guy Barnett, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Rossi, Mr. Freeson, and

Mr. Tinn; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Guy Barnett.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords amendment reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

COUNTER-INFLATION (CONTINUATION OF ENACTMENTS)

9.2 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I beg to move,
That the draft Counter-Inflation (Continuation of Enactments) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 22nd July, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following two motions:
That the draft Limits on Remuneration Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 22nd July, be approved.
That the draft Price Investigation and Examination (Exceptions) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 22nd July, be approved.

Mr. Booth: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It will be necessary to continue the provisions in relation to employers in the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975 to the extent needed to support and enforce the TUC guidance for the 12-month rule. The Limits on Remuneration Order has been laid for that purpose. The order is framed on the same basis on the order that the House approved last year. The original pay limits for the purposes of Section 1(1) of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act were set out in "The Attack on Inflation", Cmnd. 6151, which provided for what was known as the £6 policy.
Under the powers in Section 1(2) of the Act, the Limits of Remuneration Order 1976 added to those limits a reference to the limits set out in "The Attack on Inflation: the Second Year", known as the £2.50 to £4 policy. This order thus refers to the pay limits set out in the new White Paper "The Attack on Inflation after 31st July 1977".
It is specifically stated in the annexe to the White Paper that the statement of the TUC General Council of 22nd June about the 12-month rule constitutes the pay limits for the purposes of Section 1 of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975. The only additions mentioned in the TUC statement are self-financing productivity agreements and the improvements in occupational pension schemes.
I should point out that the order also underwrites the TUC guidance for negotiators who seek to defer due settlements under the current policy until after 31st July, and any settlement so deferred would, on the basis of the current guidelines, have to be within the pay limits. The effect of setting pay limits is the same as in the last two years. It will protect the employers from a claim for breach of contract if they can keep within the pay limits only by breaching contractual obligations. Secondly, if the Secretary of State certifies that the pay limits have been breached, sanctions will be applied.
But, unlike the last two years, the order affects particular negotiators for different periods. It affects them only for 12 months after the date of their settlement under current agreements. Therefore, for negotiators who concluded a settlement under the guidelines on 1st October 1976, this order limits their freedom to negotiate only up to 1st October this year.
The Government attach the greatest importance to the guidance of the TUC which constitutes the pay limits for the purposes of the order, since its observance will go far towards enabling an orderly return to collective bargaining to take place over the next year.

Mr. Timothy Raison: May I ask the Secretary of State to clarify a point about which I am not clear? As I understand it, the annex applies only to Section 1 of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975. Section 4 of the Act says that
If it appears to the Secretary of State that any action taken or likely to be taken by a local authority in Great Britain may result or has resulted in the payment, for any period during which section 1 of this Act is in force, of any remuneration in excess of the limits mentioned in that section he may, after giving the authority an opportunity of making representations.…
dock the rate support grant, in effect. Is it the case that the new White Paper affects only those things referred to in Section 1—namely, the business of letting off employers from the duty of fulfillling their contracts—or does it also affect local government? In other words, does it have a general purpose for all things that the Government want, or is it solely to do with employers' liability?

Mr. Booth: It is not the case that it would affect solely employers' liability. It has the same effect as in the previous two years. The only essential difference is that the time period of calculation is changed. I shall try to help the House by explaining the somewhat technical interaction between Sections 1 and 2 of the Act.

Mr. Raison: But the footnote to the annex in the White Paper states:
This statement alone constitutes the pay limits in this White Paper for the purposes of Section 1 of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975.
The purposes of Section 1 are defined by the rubric as being "Remuneration under existing agreements." But Section 1 is really all about the question of employers' liability and has nothing to do with whether a local authority should get rate support grant. What is the meaning, therefore, of the phrase "for the purposes"? Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that the new White Paper will not have general application and will be limited to what on the face of it appear to be the purposes of Section 1 and nothing else?

Mr. Booth: The other orders were introduced in the same form relating to section 1. The practice of the Government under the combined effect of orders such as those we are considering was to take into account arty breaches of the pay policy in deciding matters such as discretionary grants and rate support grant. The Government, where they had discretion, used this as the guideline by which they operated a sanction for the enforcement of the pay policy. Under Section 4 of the Act the Secretary of State may
reduce and … without any sums payable to the authority by way of rate support grant under Section 6 of the Local Government Act 1974".
That is
If it appears to the Secretary of State that any action taken or likely to be taken by a local authority in Great Britain may result or has resulted in the payment, for any period during which Section I of this Act is in force".
That power derives from Section 4 of the 1975 Act. The powers are laid for the Government to do that, but what we are doing is to continue a practice that has applied over the past two years as covered by the pay policy.
It is proposed to prolong powers to control dividends under Section 10 of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 This arises from the Government's White Paper "The Attack on Inflation" after 31st July 1977.

Mr. Raison: I understand that what the Secretary of State has just said is that the new White Paper, and in particular this new and rather odious annex, does not apply only to Section 1 in its operation but to Section 4 as well. The sentence that appears under the annex states:
This statement alone constitutes the pay limits in this White Paper for the purposes of Section I of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975.
If that had occurred in the explanatory note that goes alongside the order I think I should be right in saying that it did not have any legal force. I believe that an explanatory note does not have any legal force However, as I read it the statement that appears underneath the annex has legal force. Except for one line there is nothing that I can see to detract from that statement having legal force. It may or may not be the case that this is a faulty statement. I suspect that it is an imperfect statement. I suspect that it is rather a vague statement and one that should be amended, but here we come up against one of the crucial difficulties. Under the appalling procedure adopted by the Government we cannot amend. We must proceed on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the sentence that comes after the annex has legal force? Does he have any reason to doubt that it is perfectly correct and viable as it stands?

Mr. Booth: Without trespassing beyond the rules of order, I do not think that I can reply to all those questions. It is not the case that the Government introduced the practice of not being able to amend affirmative orders. The hon. Gentleman is utterly mistaken if he thinks that that is so. As for the note that appears at the bottom of Annex A of the White Paper, it has no legal effect in itself. It is the passing of the order tonight that will give that annex the effect of constituting the pay limits. The purpose of the note is to make it clear that it is only the annex that constitutes pay limits for the purpose of the order, not the preceding pages of the White Paper.
Having constituted limits for the purpose of a continuation of that part of the Remuneration. Charges and Grants Act. The effect for those pay settlements covered by the limits is precisely the same as in preceding years. The sanctions attached to it are in no way looser or greater than they have been in the preceding two years. It was the case with the two preceding White Papers that the advice for the purpose of determining whether there had been a breach of pay policy was contained within only a limited part. In no case was the whole of the White Paper the basis on which I or my predecessor tested whether there had been a breach of the pay limits.

Mr. Raison: Section 1(1) of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975 refers to
limits imposed by the policy set out in the document laid before Parliament by command of Her Majesty in July 1975 (Cmnd. 6151)".
It does not say that the policy set out in this document is confined exclusively to the annex. I do not think that the word "annex" appears in this document. It refers to the policy set out in the White Paper. I understand the effect of the order to be that there is a new White Paper, which has a new policy. But there is nothing in the new order implementing it. It refers only to the annex as opposed to the whole of the new White Paper that came out the other day.
On the face of it, this is talking about the whole of the new White Paper. The Secretary of State said that that is as may be, but underneath the annex another sentence mysteriously appears, which is by way of being an explanatory memorandum. I have never seen an explanatory memorandum or note, or whatever it is called, appear in the order before. I cannot see how the Secretary of State can say that bits of the White Paper are part of the law of the land and other bits are not. It does not seem to be defined in any proper way.

Mr. Booth: The hon. Gentleman is demonstrating that he has not read many orders. It is the general practice for Ministers laying orders to append explanatory memoranda.

Mr. Raison: With respect, I am aware of that. I have read quite enough orders.

I have here the order that we are debating now. This order has an explanatory note on the back. That is the normal practice. I am talking about an annex to the White Paper. Underneath the statement by the TUC on the last page of the White Paper is a line and then the sentence that I have already read twice. As far as I can make out, the Secretary of State is saying that this is an explanatory note, but there is nothing to show that it is an explanatory note. It appears as part of the White Paper. There is no statement saying that it is an explanatory not. I cannot understand why there is no statement saying that.

Mr. Booth: For the hon. Gentleman's benefit, I shall try to explain it again. Both he and I are agreed on the proposition that the explanatory note attached to the order in itself has no legal effect. The legal effect that flows from the passing of the order is to provide pay limits by which the extension of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act can be operated. Therefore, it is essential to be able to identify which parts of the White Paper constitute the pay limits for the purpose of the order. In this case it is of greater consequence than in previous years. There is a distinction to be drawn between the practice in this year and that in previous years. The advice relates only to pay settlements that come within the 12 months after phase 2. The other matters referred to in the White Paper relate to post-phase 2 settlements, which are not covered by the legal effect of the order.

Mr. Raison: The right hon. Gentleman is being extremely patient and is obviously trying to meet my point. Surely, if we are defining which parts of the White Paper will be part of the law of the land and which parts will not, the proper pace to do that is in the order that brings them into effect. The Limits on Remuneration Order 1977 does not, as far as I can see, say that some parts will apply and other parts will not. It does not specifically give a legal basis to this sentence here and no legal basis to the rest. The order is, to say the least, imperfect.

Mr. Booth: The order refers to all the pay limits in the White Paper. There is a reference in the order to pay limits at large. I have sought to make clear the part for which there is legal sanction for


a continuation of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act power, and that is contained in the text of Annex A. It is put there to make clear the way in which the order operates and gives legal sanction for the continuation of the pay policy with the limits defined in Annex A. By the same process, it makes clear that the statutory powers do not continue in respect of other parts of the White Paper. The text of Annex A makes perfectly clear that the TUC statement alone consitutes the pay limits for the period after 31st July.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I think that the way in which the Secretary of State has sought to answer questions on this point is understandable, because he says that this is all part and parcel of the same proposition, but the fact remains that the fourth paragraph of the order that we are debating tonight states:
And whereas Her Majesty has caused to be laid before Parliament a document (Cmnd. 6882) which sets out limits on remuneration for the period beginning on 1st August 1977
and so on.
The Secretary of State's comments to my hon. Friend suggest that the limits for remuneration do not in any way apply, because the only power of Cmnd. 6882 which applies to the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act is the reference to the TUC statement, which does not contain any guidance whatever in relation to pay but only in relation to the 12-month application. Is there not a basic conflict, as my hon. Friend has suggested, between the White Paper, which refers to total pay, and the annex, which refers only to the 12-month rule?

Mr. Booth: There is no conflict, because neither document can operate in isolation. The White Paper pay limits cannot have any effect in relation to the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act without the order. Similarly, the order itself cannot be react by anyone in such a way as to find out what the limits are. The limits can be found only by reference to the White Paper. The order makes this completely clear. It is not possible by reading the White Paper alone to deduce or find the way or the mechanism by which it is given legal effect under the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act. That can be done only by the order before the House.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I understand what the Secretary of State is saying, but the fact remains that only a portion of Cmnd. 6882 is relevant to the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act. That portion is clearly listed in Annex A, but we have here an instrument that says that Cmnd. 6882 sets out the limits on remuneration for the period, whereas it would be more correct to say that it sets out in Annex A the part under which Section 1 of the 1975 Act will heretofore apply. It does not suggest in that particular phrase that only the 12-month rule applies but states that only remuneration advice contained in Cmnd. 6882 applies.

Mr. Booth: No. If the hon. Gentleman reads the whole order carefully he will sec on the front page of the order that it is made very clear that the order does not refer to all remuneration for the year from 1st August 1977 to 1st August 1978. The first page makes clear that it applies only to remuneration determined under phase 2 for the period in which they run. It refers to a date up to 31st July or 12 months after the previous settlement, whichever is the earlier. Therefore, that reading is the ordinary, simple, common sense intelligent reading of the English of the order.
One cannot deduce that it applies to all remunerations in the period from 1st August 1977 to 1st August 1978. It is set out quite clearly that it applies only to different periods for different remunerations. Therefore, I think that one cannot but deduce that one has to read the order in conjunction with the White Paper to see what are the limits for those periods covered. As I have made clear in describing the purpose of the order, those periods are the periods of 12 months from the conclusion of the phase 2 settlements.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I am concerned about paragraph 4, which refers to Cmnd. 6882 setting out limits on remuneration. Leaving aside the increase, the other part of Cmnd. 6882 which sets out limits is on page 3, which contains repeated references to 10 per cent. I want an assurance that the order will not be interpreted in such a way as to set out limits on remuneration which in general terms will be 10 per cent. I do not want to give employers the


excuse to say that they cannot exceed the 10 per cent. limit because a Statutory Instrument to that effect has been passed. Paragraph 4 refers to setting limits on remuneration, and it says also that those limits are contained in Cmnd. 6882. What are the limits in Cmnd. 6882 which apply to that paragraph?

Mr. Booth: I must refer my hon. Friend to the part of the order to which I referred the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw). That is the fourth paragraph, which reads
And whereas Her Majesty has caused to be laid before Parliament a document (Cmnd. 6882) which sets out limits on remuneration for the period beginning on 1st August 1977 and ending with 31st July 1978 or twelve months after the date of the last pay settlement under Cmnd. 6507, whichever is the earlier.
Therefore, the part to which those limits apply in the order can apply only for 12 months from the date of the phase 2 settlement. They cannot apply to the whole of the order and, therefore, they must be the part covered by Annex A. It would be nonsense to say that as a result of the order the 10 per cent. applies to phase 2 settlements. The order makes it clear that the phase 2 pay limits are amended only in so far as that is set out in Annex A to the order.
There is no possibility under the order in this form—I took great care to ensure that this would be the case—that it can apply to any other settlement. In other words, the statutory effect of the order cannot apply to a post-phase 2 settlement. It can only qualify a phase 2 settlement. The extent to which it can do that beyond the existing limits of phase 2 are the references in Annex A to self-financing productivity agreements and to pension settlements which, unless the order is passed tonight, will be cut off at the contracting-out point. If the order is passed, that limit will be removed and pension settlements can be made above the contracting-out limit.
The effect of the fourth paragraph is to make it quite clear that the continuation of the powers under the Remuneration. Charges and Grants Act is possible only in respect of those periods for those particular settlements and that the only way in which limits can be varied is according to what is set out in Annex A.
I omitted to answer the hon. Member for Pudsey on the relationship between Section 4 and Section 1 of the 1975 Act. The relationship is to be found in the reading of Section 4 which refers to the limits on Section 1. Therefore, this order adds new limits to Section 1 and in so doing has that effect on Section 4 by the reference in Section 4 to Section 1.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am a little puzzled as to what "remuneration" really means. For example, does the 10 per cent. limit apply to top civil servants who have an office in Whitehall and who are supplied with a car to take them to Charing Cross Station or Victoria Station, even though the bus stops outside their office? That car is worth hundreds of pounds a year. I do not want to get at the civil servants. Ministers are in the same boat. They have houses, flats, furniture, heat and light and so on. Is that not remuneration? If I tell my constituents that Ministers get thousands of pounds a year in kind, how can I then tell them that they must ask for nothing extra in their remuneration? Would my constituents be allowed to ask that their house or car be supplied tax free?

Mr. Booth: My recollection is that the ministerial office what I occupied did not involve an increase in salary under phase 1 or 2. No right were granted to any Ministers to have their houses paid for.
I turn to the 10 per cent. earnings increase, to which the White Paper refers. It is not within the terms of the order. I would therefore be out of order were I to discuss it. I can discuss only the pay limits affected by the order. They are the pay limits for the period of phase 2.
The main purpose of the draft order on dividend control is to prolong powers to control dividends under Section 10 of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973. It arises out of the Government's White Paper "The Attack on Inflation after 31st July 1977" which was approved by the House in what I might term the confidence debate last week.
The reference to dividends is in paragraph 15. The draft order prolongs the controls until 31st July 1978, after which all legislative authority ceases. There are


no changes in the form of controls compared with those in phase 2. The statutory limit remains at 10 per cent. with a range of provisions for dividend increases above the limit in certain circumstances, notably for the raising of new capital for investment.
The order also prolongs Section 8. This gives power to the Government to modify statutes relating to prices. It was used to ensure that the price control could override any previous statutory provisions in relation to prices, but it has not been needed for some years. It is unlikely to be needed for the forthcoming year. The only reason for continuing this is because it is necessary to maintain the validity of orders made under that section.
The philosophy behind the Prices Investigation and Examination (Exceptions) Order is that there are certain sectors which, for one reason or another, are not susceptible to control under the powers provided in the Price Commission Act This is not a new concept. Successive Price Code orders have also made provisions for exceptions where particular prices or charges could not be meaningfully controlled under the Price Code.
The exceptions order and the Price Code share another idea in common—namely, that the number of exceptions should be kept to the bare minimum. We promised that exceptions would be minimal, and they are. To do otherwise would detract from the effectiveness of the controls. The exceptions order covers only a fraction of economic activity, and there are no major changes. There are only two exceptions—car parking charges levied by public authorities and local authority trading services which are not excluded from examination.

Mr. Michael Neubert: The right hon. Gentleman should not play down the significance of exceptions, because under paragraph 7 of the Treaty Establishing the European Coal and Steel Community the sale of coal and steel is excluded. Does that not have a significant effect upon our economy?

Mr. Booth: I was not playing down the exceptions. I shall seek to describe briefly the reasons for the exceptions, including the particular one to which the hon. Member referred.
Article 2(1) provides that prices and charges specified in Parts I, II and III of the schedule to the order are to be outside the scope of investigations into price levels under subsection 5(1)(a) of the Act. These same prices and charges will not be subject to any requirement to prenotify increases to the Price Commission. As a result, they will automatically be outside the scope of investigations into price increases under Section 4. The effect, therefore, of the exceptions made by Article 2(1) is to take prices and charges listed in the schedule out of all forms of investigation.
The coverage of the order is much the same as for exemptions from the Price Code. It falls into three broad categories.
First, there are those areas which are subject to international obligations, such as those to which the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) referred—coal and steel—or are just simply outside United Kingdom jurisdiction; for example, the price of exports, and the price of imports on first sale into the United Kingdom.
Secondly, there are the areas in which prices and charges already letermined by a way as to make it impossible to control them—for example, goods sold by auction and prices determined by, or in relation to, commodity markets.
The third type of exception relates to prices and charges already determined by bodies other than the Price Commission—for example, bus fares determined by the traffic commissioners and domestic air fares determined by the Civil Aviation Authority.
It makes no sense in that sort of case to double bank controls when there are already other bodies with responsibility for supervising and controlling prices or charges.
We do not propose to carry over all the exceptions from investigation into exceptions from examination. There are two reasons for this. There are sectors in which, although prices or charges at the level of the individual firm cannot be controlled, the whole sector could be subject to meaningful control through an examination. The second reason is that there will be times when there is a strong case for sectoral examinations of a purely fact-finding nature, of the sort that the


Price Commission has carried out under the powers contained in the Counter-Inflation Act 1973.
It is also likely to be the case that particular examinations will range over a wider field of investigations into individual firms. In such cases, the Commission will need fairly general terms of reference if it is to carry out a successful examination. If we cast too wide the net of complete exclusion from examination, we run the risk of inadvertently preventing the Commission from looking at prices and charges about which it needs information if it is to make a comprehensive report on other prices which are actually the subject of examination.
We therefore propose two types of exception from the provisions of the Bill dealing with examination. A very small number of sectors will be exempt, under Article 2(2) of the draft Order, from Section 10 of the Act and therefore totally outside the scope of examinations. These are set out in Part I of the schedule. Hon. Members will see that the exceptions consist basically of the areas in which prices or charges are already determined by other bodies.
The second category of exceptions is set out in Part II of the schedule. These are the sectors which will be liable only to fact-finding examinations. The exceptions in Part III of the order are exempt from investigation but remain fully susceptible to the examination system.
Knowing that there are time limits on this debate, I have tried to describe briefly the purpose and mechanisms of the orders. My hon. Friends the Minister of State, Treasury and the Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection are with me on the Front Bench to listen to hon. Members' comments, which we shall take into account in the administration of the orders if they are passed by the House, and to ensure that the three Departments concerned with the orders can contribute in the reply to the debate.
I commend the orders to the House.

9.39 p.m.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: There were times during the exchanges which have just taken place when I thought that perhaps I might be winding

up the debate instead of speaking during its opening stages. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the Secretary of State for "Unemployment" It is perhaps unfair to give him that particular title. It should be more appropriately given to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, because that is where the trouble will lie one year after the Price Commission Act has been enacted.
I am, however, glad that the right hon. Gentleman directed most of his remarks to one of the orders that we are debating which is known as the so-called "pay sanction" order. He has demonstrated in a way that no one could have demonstrated better that the pay sanction itself is so translucent and ephemeral that it should have been written in invisible ink on cellophane paper.
Nowhere is it better illustrated than in the relationship between the order and the White Paper "Attack on Inflation after 31st July 1977" that phase 3 is dead and buried. Whichever school of thought one belongs to with regard to pay policy, two facts are inescapable. The first is that the Government have said categorically that phase 3 of wage restraint was crucial to their survival and to economic success. The second fact is that there is no phase 3 and that this order and the White Paper are merely window-dressing.
The White Paper itself, to which the order closely relates, is merely a sheep in wolf's clothing. The situation that has arisen is one that I predicted as long as nine months ago when I warned that prices were still rising so fast that the outcome of any wage negotiations this summer would be in jeopardy. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition predicted it from the first moment that the Government produced their "Attack on Inflation" White Paper and embarked on their pay policy. She warned of the difficulty of re-entry, particularly if it occurred at a time when inflation had not been brought under control. That is exactly what has happened, and that is why we have this white sheep of a White Paper and this order tonight.
It was inevitable from the beginning that differentials would have to be restored at this stage, but the continuing high rate of inflation has added to the pressures


that would have been there in the first place. Of course, there is nothing in the White Paper or in the order—as the Secretary of State has confirmed, because it is impossible—to set the single-figure limit for pay settlements on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister have laid SD much emphasis.
The Secretary of State confirmed in a reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) that there is nothing whatever in the White Paper which imposes a single-figure pay settlement requirement. Now we have the Government producing an order which is supposed to impose a sanction against a breach of the Pay Code which is so diaphanously clad that it is almost indecent.
Nowhere are any pay limits defined or agreed—I stress the word "agreed"—outside the short-term 12-month rule, and even that will have very little effect after 1st August this year.

Mr. Ron Thomas: On many occasions in the House the hon. Lady has made it clear that she is absolutely opposed to any kind of control on prices. She is now saying that she wants to see control over wage increases. Is that still the case?

Mrs. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman should have listened more carefully to what I have said. I said that at this moment of time it was an inescapable fact of life that we would not get the type of pay agreement which the Government set out to get because it was absolutely impossible in the circumstances that prevail today. I have said, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, that at this stage in the proceedings there has to be a restoration of differentials, but inevitably, because of the levels of inflation, they will be higher than they would have been otherwise and this will have an effect on every pay sector.
What I am now saying is that this White Paper and this order do not constitute a pay policy at all. They are merely a whitewashing act to disguise the fact that the Government have not got a phase 3 of pay policy.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said in a letter on 25th July,

'In the first place, the TUC advice attached as an Annex to the White Paper"—
to which my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) have referred—
only says that negotiators should have settlements not sooner than 12 months from their Stage 2 settlement and that they should not postpone their Stage 2 settlement till after 31st July in the hope of getting more than. … What it does not say is that settlements in the coming year should last for 12 months.
In other words, it says "You can have two, three or four settlements—as many as you like—during the next 12 months" and that is what the Government are representing to the House as being a pay policy.
If we look at the order itself, we see that it refers to limits set out in the White Paper. We look at paragraph 11 of the White Paper to see what the Government intend. The most that we get is that they seek to ensure that the national target is met. Is that a pay policy—seeking to ensure?
Then we turn to the back page of the White Paper and to the sentence to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury referred. We see that that in turn refers to a statement by the General Council of the TUC. There we see not a word about agreement with the Government. All that it says is that the General Council attaches the utmost importance to the continued observance by negotiators of the guidelines laid down—

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): Does the hon. Lady advocate a statutory numerical pay policy? If not, what is her policy?

Mrs. Oppenheim: It appears that the Minister of State has not been listening either. I am saying that the Government have not got a pay policy at all. What they are presenting as a pay policy is not a pay policy.
If we compare the White Paper which we are discussing in relation to this order with previous White Papers, we see that last year there was a definite agreement between the TUC and the Government and that it was referred to. If we look at the White Paper of the year before, we see that there were to be limits specifically described by the Government in the White Paper itself.
The Government are saying that they have a pay policy. There is no pay policy in this order, and there is no pay policy in the White Paper. What we have in the White Paper is a veritable morass of ambiguity and weasel words attempting to cloak the reality that there is no pay policy.
I am pleased that the Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection will be replying to this debate. He will have the responsibility in his Department for the imposition of the pay sanctions, such as they are, through prices. Of course, he was formerly in the Department of Employment before his very well deserved promotion. He knows all about pay policies because he had special responsibility back in 1974, during the proceedings on the 1974 Prices Bill, for the abolition of the then Pay Code.
In Committee the Minister of State waxed eloquent on the subject. In one speech he said:
a statutory policy has proved with experience to be unworkable.… It does not work. Day after day, Ministers in my Department are faced by delegations with problems about the statutory incomes policy. Not just one or two but sometimes as many as five delegations in five minutes.
The Department must have been very busy over the past two years. He went on to say, with remarkable prescience:
One can so often create a situation in which ordinary reasonable people, because of the unworkability of the policy and frustrations it causes, suddenly become Samsons bringing the temple around them down in ruins.
That was a marvellously prescient statement. But that was not all. His prophetic insight went further than that. He went on:
the longer the statutory policy remains in force, the more difficult it is to rehabilitate free collective bargaining, and the more difficult it is to redress the anomalies and grievances and the inequalities which would have grown up during the period of the statutory policy."—[Official Report. Standing Committee D, 21st May 1974; c. 465–7.]
I am delighted that the Minister of State will bring his expertise to tell the House exactly how pay policies do not work. After he has told us that, no doubt he will say how his Department will operate a pay sanction through a prices policy.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you please confirm to those of us on the Back Benches that we shall have an opportunity to indulge in the same long-ranging debate on pay policy and counter-inflation policy as that which we are hearing from the Opposition Front Bench at present?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is very difficult to anticipate what line a debate can take, but the Chair will certainly give fair play within the terms of the matters under discussion.

Mrs. Oppenheim: As it happens, I had intended to turn now to the aspect of the order that disturbs us on this side of the House more than anything else. We warned on each occasion that a pay sanction was imposed that it was unfair and wrong to place the onus for keeping within the pay limits on employers and to punish them for something over which, in all good faith, they might have no control. It is like putting two boxers in a ring with one having his hands tied behind his back.
It is true that both sides of industry have a responsibility in this matter. But this sanction makes it a very one-sided affair. It is potentially all the more serious since this provision overrides the already inaccurate safeguards in the Price Commission Act itself. Very often smaller companies which are near safeguard levels will have to pay more merely to keep up with the perks and pension advantages offered by bigger companies. We warn very emphatically of the serious effect that this sanction can have if it is applied against companies with very low levels of profitability. We are in any case utterly opposed to this principle.
We should also like to hear more from the Secretary of State, and from the Minister of State when he winds up, about how the rules are to be applied to public sector employers as opposed to private sector employers, because public sector employers are not held to any percentage limits under this order. They are held only to a short-term time factor. What sanction will apply to public sector bodies if they merely go further and further into deficit to finance pay claims in breach of the albeit very flimsy provisions in the order? Or will it be a


question of the Government bailing them out year after year by writing off their loans, without coming in any way under the cash limit provisions which will he operating in the next year and a half?
I honestly do not suppose that this order is to be taken seriously by anyone. In laying it the Government are merely going through the motions of acting out the charade that phase 3 have now become. It is for us to denounce this subterfuge for what it is.
As for the other orders, the Price Investigation and Examination (Exceptions) Order 1977 is unexceptional and self-explanatory. I think that the Secretary of State explained it very well. The order providing for dividend control will be dealt with fully by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson), who will wind up for the Opposition.
I know that the Labour Party would like to see all equity investment in the hands of institutions, but unless we can encourage small investors to go into equities there will be very little of the fundamental expansion that we need if we are to return to fuller employment. When we talk about individual investors we are not talking about big individual investors, because dividends make no difference to them. They pay a great deal of tax on them. We are talking about the small individual investor and the pension funds. Dividend control makes a great deal of difference to them.
It is true that this dividend control will last only for another year, but it was intended to be a quid pro quo for a year of pay policy, and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has already made clear that there is no formal pay policy in the sense meant by the right hon. Gentleman when he made that proviso. Therefore, it is inconsistent not only to continue profit margin control but to continue dividend control. However, it is an inconsistency which I do not expect Labour hon. Members to appreciate.
It is perhaps appropriate that we should have a clutch of orders in practically the last debate on Government business this Session, orders which are so characteristic of what has preceded them from the Government throughout

the Session. They represent subterfuge, injustice, inequity and distortion. They will do nobody any good, and they have a potential to do a great deal of harm. As such, they constitute a very fitting epitaph for the Government's business at the end of this Session.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Whenever the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) speaks in the House, she says that she is completely opposed to any control on prices, but by implication she makes it clear that she would like to see control on wages. I find it nauseating that Opposition Members should continue to shed crocodile tears about the number of people unemployed when it is essentially the Tory laissez-faire policies that the Government have been pursuing that has created the unemployment. If the Government take much more advice from the Opposition, the unemployment figure may go well above 2 million.
One myth which the figure of 1.6 million unemployed has exploded, I hope once and for all, is that one man's wage increase means another man going on the dole queue, or rubbish of that sort, which occasionally we hear from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Working people have accepted cuts in their standard of living and have seen stagflation biting deeper into it.
Although I have been advised by my hon. Friends that I am chasing something that is not there, I would point out that the fourth paragraph of the Limits on Remuneration Order refers to setting out limits. If we are concerned only with the 12-months limit, we need have regard only to Cmnd. 6507.

Mr. Booth: Had I referred only to Cmnd. 6507 and not to Cmnd. 6882 it would not have been possible, within the provisions of phase 2, to extend claims for pension improvements beyond a certain time or to negotiate within phase 2 a self-financing productivity agreement. It was necessary to make the reference to the other White Paper so that the adjustments could take place within phase 2 settlements.

Mr. Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend. I take it from what he said that I can advise shop stewards and trade union


negotiators in my constituency that nothing in the order in respect of phase 3—if I may use that term—negotiations will enable an employer to say that he cannot give an increase of more than 10 per cent. I want to be able to advise negotiators in my area of Bristol and in the West Country that they can legitimately make and pursue wage claims of more than 10 per cent. without the Government calling in aid Section 4 of the Remuneration. Charges and Grants Act or any other legislation. I should like the Minister who replies to the debate to make that clear.
I am not happy with the 12-month rule. It hits at workers in local authorities and those who come within joint industrial councils and wages councils who negotiate pay claims once a year. They tend to be lower-paid workers, because these pay policies—

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At 10 o'clock you will be obliged to put the motion on the Order Paper for the suspension of the rule. I wonder whether you can tell us about the situation on the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill, because the suspension motion as drafted includes not only the Bills specifically mentioned therein but any other messages from the House of Lords. The message that matters is that which contains the amendments from the Lords on the Housing(Homeless Persons) Bill Are these amendments available? If not, when will they be available? Also, am I right in saying that there are about 60 amendments to the Bill for the House to consider?

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I shall put the business motion and then I shall reply to the hon. Member's point of order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the National Health Service Bill [Lords], the Consideration of a Lords Amendment to the Post Office Bill, any proceedings on Motions relating to Committees to draw up Reasons, and the consideration of any Lords messages which may be received may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour, the Motion relating to Sound Broadcasting (Joint Committee) may be proceeded with though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Tinn.]

Mr. Speaker: In reply to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) I believe that the amendments have been received from another place and it will be open for the House to deal with them under the Standing Orders if the House so decides.

Mr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When will the amendments be available to hon. Members? The House of Lords finished debating them at 6 o'clock. I understand that there are about 60 amendments, and the House has just decided that we can determine these amendments, though opposed, after 10 o'clock even though hon. Members have not had the opportunity to see them.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the amendments have been received. They have gone to the Public Bill Office, where the staff are working to ensure that right hon. and hon. Members will have copies available when we come to this matter.

Mr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is the final stage in the consideration and processing of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill and it is absolutely in character with the manner in which the whole Bill has proceeded. It is undoubtedly the worst-processed Bill in history and the worst constructed, and the country will see that it is a disaster.

Mr. Speaker: The amendments will be available shortly. The staff of the House, who have had to work under exceptionally difficult circumstances this week, are working at it now.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course we all pay


tribute to you and your staff for the excellent work you always do. What we object to is a non-elected body holding us up and preventing us from carrying out our parliamentary duties. The other place—the non-elected body—is holding up parliamentary democracy. If it wishes to carry on with this anachronism it should do so when it does not hold up the work of the democratically-elected body in this place.

Mr. Speaker: I think that these points can be raised—the hon. Member has been here for more than 32 years, as I have—when the amendments are presented. That might be an opportunity for a brief intervention.

Mr. Michael Shersby: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you advise the House whether it is reasonable that hon. Members at this late hour should be expected to study so many amendments from another place? Shall we have sufficient opportunity to consider these amendments carefully and express a point of view? I believe that this is a grave situation which faces every hon. Member present.

Mr. Speaker: These are questions that should be raised when the House is presented with the amendments. We are holding up the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas).

COUNTER-INFLATION (CONTINUATION OFENACTMENTS)

Question again proposed.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to make two brief points. I am not happy with the 12-month rule because it will penalise mainly the low paid workers. Other workers can take advantage of job evaluation schemes, payment-by-results schemes, measured day-work schemes and all the rest of it, which enable certain groups of workers to push up their earnings, and rightly so, day to day and week to week. The view that there is to be only one increase and that they will have to wait 12 months for any increase will hit the lower paid.
I have no faith in the White Paper figure of 10 per cent. in meeting the kind of inflation levels that we must expect in the next 12 months. Workers have to think about net pay increases because in the vast majority of cases 34 per cent. of it will go in tax.
I have no faith in the other order dealing with the limitation of dividends. There is ample evidence that any form of limitation of dividends is likely to be defeated by scrip issues in order to get round the controls over dividends. Companies are now making massive profits, and by manipulating the system they are salting away money for the future. That will add further to the profits of company shareholders and will assist the wealthy people of this country.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I wish to refer to the Limits on Remuneration Order 1977. I wish to remind the Secretary of State that he spent four years as a very distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. He will recollect that the first thing he looked for in a Statutory Instrument was the power of the Minister to make such an order.
We find in the sixth paragraph of the order the following passage:
Now, therefore, the Secretary of State, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 1(2) of the 1975 Act and of all other powers enabling him in that behalf, hereby makes the following Order".
The 1975 Act to which reference is made is the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975. Therefore, we turn to Section 1(2) of that Act to see what power the Secretary of State has to make this order. That provision reads:
if Her Majesty at any time causes a document to be laid before Parliament which sets out limits in addition to or in substitution for those so imposed".
If we refer back to subsection (1), which relates to the first White Paper, we see that he has power to make the order. It implies that that will happen if there is a document setting out limits and, secondly, that that should be in addition to or in substitution for the previous limits.
We are assured that the White Paper, Cmnd 6882, sets out limits within the meaning of the parent Act, the Act of 1975. We refer to that document to find out what those limits are. The White Paper sets out the statement of the General Council of the TUC, which was as follows:
The General Council attach the utmost importance to the continued observance by negotiators of the guidelines of the £2.50/5%/ £4 policy adopted by Congress".
This means that it is a continuation. All that the new White Paper does is to continue the policy set out in the previous White Paper, Cmnd 6507.
Is it an addition to or a substitution for last year's limits? I doubt it. It calls on those negotiators to keep to last year's limits. It goes on to say that it shall include a requirement of a 12-month interval between settlements. Are

we to take it that that limitation in time—12 months—is a limitation of pay within the meaning of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act?
In the first White Paper the figures and percentages were set out. They were written down so that those who had to obey the limits could find out what they were. The same applied to the second White Paper. It is, of course, of vital importance that anyone who will be bound by the order should know the limits by which he will be bound. Employers will not have to pay any salaries or wages above the limits, no matter what they may agree with their employees. If local authorities go above the limits, they will be refused certain assistance from the central Government. Employers who pay above the limits will not be able to increase their prices to include that pay. It is therefore, of vital importance to employers, manufacturers and local authorities to know exactly what the limits will be.
If the limits are those set out in the annex, they have not changed in comparison with the previous year and the Secretary of State has no power to make the order. If they are changed—and it has been suggested that they are changed by some phrases in the order—those phrases are so vague that it will be quite impossible for those who will be bound by the limits to know what the limits will be.
On that basis, the Government would be wise to take the order back and produce another draft, and, perhaps, another White Paper setting out exactly what they intend the pay policy and the limits to be. Otherwise, things will be extremely difficult and there will be an invitation to litigation. It was only a few days ago that an order had to be withdrawn because of the failure of a Secretary of State to observe the parent statute under which he was making the draft order. The same should be done in this case. The Secretary of State should consider withdrawing the draft order and bringing one in which is clearly within the powers given to him by the 1975 Act.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: A few moments ago the number


of years that I have been in the House was mentioned by the Chair, and my mind ran back over the years during which I have listened to such speeches from members of Governments of both political parties. Each year they have come forward with an answer and solved the problem—until the next year, when it was discovered that they had not.
I wondered tonight during the speech of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) whether the hon. Lady and I had been in some other place over the years, because I had a feeling that I have seen or heard her as a supporter of what my constituents used to call "the Heathen Government". That Government had policies such as the hon. Lady advocated. That Government did the same things as this Government, and that Government also failed. There was rampant inflation and trouble with the trade unions. I was therefore amazed to hear the hon. Lady come forward with such arguments, because she did not do so when the Government were in power.
I have been against such policies all the way through, because they do not and will not work. There are so many ways round such policies. They can be found through arrangement with or connivance by hon. Members. The lawyers were here earlier tonight, but they have all gone home now to work on their briefs. They will draw their fees and take whatever fees they like. They earn hundreds of pounds. There is no question of a 10 per cent. limit for them. We can pick up a newspaper any day and read of this case or that, with thousands of pounds being spent upon lawyers. I am referring to lawyers on both sides of the House and not to those of one party or another. Of course, they are all in favour of the limit—be it 10, 15 or 20 per cent.—until it hits them.
Each week the Sunday Express has contributions from three Members of this House. All of them are in favour of attacking the lower-paid worker having control over his own wages. They get more for one article in the Sunday Express proclaiming the need for a wages policy than the miner gets for a week's work. My tight hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) is not present. He had an article in the

News of the World clamouring for wage control. I gamble that he got £300 for it.
When I interjected in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment about Ministers getting round the pay policy, he admitted that Ministers get houses, flats and the rest—at least, many of them do. Let us pick one out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gets such privileges. All Ministers get the use of cars.
What of the civil servants who invent these policies that Governments bring in? In the Whitehall offices are top civil servants getting £15,000 to £20,000 a year. They are all in favour of this policy. Buses outside their office doors go to Victoria or Charing Cross, but they do not use them. They are provided with cars and chauffeurs because they dare not get on a bus. That is another way they can get round the pay policy.
What about our friends on the TUC General Council? I ask a lot of Questions and encounter a lot of ways of dodging answers. How many members of the TUC General Council have sinecures and part-time jobs on Government boards? What are they getting by way of wages for doing so? About 150 jobs are shared among them. But they will not give details. That is another way of getting round the incomes policy, of which many of the members of the General Council are in favour.
There is a lovely radio programme called "Any Questions" on Friday nights. Members of Parliament usually take part. They get more for taking part than a miner gets for his full week's work.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Five pounds.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Lady is probably quoting the cost of the dinner.
There has been complaint today about another place holding up legislation. I have tried to get figures about Members of another place. They will not give them. The Treasury does not want to disclose what is happening. Almost all the Members of another place who proclaim their support for the prices and—mainly—wages policy get £16·50 a day tax-free, which in most cases is worth £200 to £300 a day to them on a gross, taxable basis. The hon. Member for


Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) smiles. Let him look at the answer that the Treasury has given me. I know that the Treasury is mostly wrong, but on this occasion it is right.
Many of those in another place are on £15,000 or £20,000 a year. If we pay a person with that sort of income a tax-free allowance of £16.50 a day, that is worth £200 or £300 a week. That applies to those in another place whatever party they represent. We find that Lord X is the part-time chairman of this board, that board or the other board, but it is impossible to find out what he is receiving. Mostly they arc not paid wages or salaries. That is why I asked for a definition of remuneration.
My lion. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is a great supporter of the miners. I advise my hon. Friend not to tell the miners to ask for £135 a week but to tell them to ask for £16.50 a day tax-free. Let them ask to have their cars supplied tax-free. Let them ask to have their houses supplied tax-free. Let them ask to have their furniture tax-free and the upkeep of their homes looked after. That would be much better.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wondered whether my hon. Friend would return to the civil servants. I know that it has been difficult lately to try to establish how many top civil servants are on £135 a week, which is the claim that the miners have made.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, no, my hon. Friend cannot ask for that information.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Mrs. Kellett-Bowmanrose—

Mr. Lewis: Let me deal first with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. As the miners are always under attack, I shall reply to him first. I shall return to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman).
There are hundreds of civil servants getting more than £135 a week. They are career people and we know about them, but we are not allowed to know how many Members of another place, who are non elected but are there for life, have thousands of pounds tax-free in addition to their £16·50 a day tax-free. Many of them have not one job but three or four jobs, being engaged in them for only a few hours a week.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House as to the value after tax of Mr. Gormley's new job—namely, a directorship in Canada in a company which mainly supports oil and is in direct competition with his own commodity of coal?

Mr. Lewis: In effect, I have mentioned Mr. Gormley as he is a member of the TUC General Council. I have said that I am against this sort of thing on principle irrespective of who is involved. Mr. Tom Jackson is another example. The announcement has been made today that Post Office profits are running at over £1 million a day. I am not talking about the profit when adjusted. Either it has its budgeting wrong or it has been overcharging. Probably it has its budget wrong and has been overcharging. However, Tom Jackson has three or four jobs. He is very much in favour of a wages policy.
It is not only Tom Jackson or Joe Gormley. It is not only the Labour peers and the Tory peers. We must also include the Liberal peers. It is the Government who are at fault. Perhaps we are at fault because we allow it to happen. We take no action. We do not say or do anything about it.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: Having complained on many occasions about not being sent abroad on visits, the hon. Gentleman will remember that he visited the Far East at the time of the Indonesian confrontation. He will remember that he visited Borneo as a member of the party in which I was involved. When we arrived, he was anxious because he was asked to ride in a minibus instead of a staff car. I remember very well the hon. Gentleman complaining to the commander-in-chief, the air marshal, that he was expected to ride in a minibus when there were staff cars around. It was not until the Commander-in-Chief of the Far East Forces pointed out to him that we were at war with Indonesia and that the staff cars were for staff officers that he finally accepted a ride in a minibus.

Mr. Lewis: I absolutely and completely deny every word of that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall now tell the truth. This was some 20 years ago. The fact was that I was told that I could not travel in the Rover, I think it was, but


had to go in the Humber. I asked "Why?" The reason was that I was being escorted by a colonel, and a colonel never travelled in a car other than a Humber. The Rover was for the captain. I then said that I would rather travel in a minibus. In any case—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I decided to allow the hon. Gentleman to clear his name. Will he now come back to counter-inflation?

Mr. Lewis: I was about to deal with the so-called control of prices, which is part of this matter. [Interruption.] I am told that it is not. We shall wait and see.
The question of dividend control was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and by the hon. Member for Gloucester. I believe I am right in saying that the British Sugar Corporation is partly owned by the Government. The corporation has recently declared a 100 per cent. scrip issue—a 100 per cent. increase in dividends. That has become a regular habit. Many public companies are now following the Government's excellent example of getting round dividend control by making scrip issues and, with Treasury permission, giving a 100 per cent. increase in dividends.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State said that this had nothing to do with prices.

Mr. John Fraser: Mr. John Fraserrose—

Mr. Lewis: Of course it has something to do with prices. If a worker finds that the costs of goods are increasing day by day, why should he have to put up with a 10 per cent. increase? Of course this has something to do with prices. It has everything to do with prices.
Yesterday I read that all the big banks had doubled or trebled their profits. What did I find this morning in the Press? The big banks are now to put up their charges. Having on one day declared increased profits, on the very next day—they did not even wait until the end of the week—they announce that they are to put up their charges. What has happened? The Government still sit there and do nothing.
I asked a Question about beer prices. I should point out that beer prices have

gone up every three months. The official representative of the brewers objected to being told that it was being done to circumvent the Government's so-called investigation. He said "No, we are not doing it for that reason. We always put up our prices every three months."
I asked the Minister a question about that matter and got the answer that he could do nothing about it. Apparently he does not have the power. Why the hell does he not take power? Why does he sit there and do nothing? The Government soon come here and take power to deal with workers' wages. I am very much against all this. We are worsening the standard of living of the lower paid. The poor are getting poorer. We should get back to the stage of allowing the trade unions to carry out their normal job of negotiating the hours, wages and working conditions of their members. If the Government are to do that, for God's sake let them stop the profiteering that is going on almost every day of the week.
Finally, I turn to directors' fees. My hon. Friend the Minister of State must have a very thick file in his office on this matter. The company reports show that each year directors' fees are doubling and trebling.

Mr. Booth: We are investigating them.

Mr. Lewis: Of course the Government are investigating them, but still they go up. My hon. Friend could investigate the workers' wages on that basis. They would not mind the investigation as long as their wages doubled and trebled. Let the Government get back to the job they were elected to do. Let them look after the interests of the ordinary people, and then we might win some of the by-elections.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not examine every line, comma and semi-colon of the order in the way that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) clearly has done.
I wish to comment on the Limits on Remuneration Order. In the exchanges which my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and I had with the Minister earlier, two facts were clearly established. The first is that it is appallingly unsatisfactory to bring delegated


legislation before the House in the way chosen by the Government this year, last year and the year before last. The idea of having a White Paper which is then in some way embodied in a statute or an order is totally and utterly unsatisfactory.
The second point to emerge, and which the House should understand, is that although we talk about this as being a non-statutory incomes policy it is in fact statutory. It is embodied in the statute we are discussing, and in one respect it is a fairly Draconian power. The fact that Section 4 of the 1975 Act, as the Secretary of State told us, is now being updated by the order means that if a local authority should agree to pay a second increase within the 12 months covered by the rule it would be liable to have its rate support grant docked. In other words, if it conceded a pay claim of that kind it would lose its money from the central Government. I do not know from what source it would replace it. Presumably the local authority would turn to the ratepayers. It would find itself in grave trouble. That seems a powerful, although limited, sanction.
I wish to refer to the last page of the White Paper which contains Annex A. Once again, a TUC statement is being incorporated into the law of the land in a statute on which the whole of the incomes policy rests. It is appalling that the law is defined by the throw-away sentence
This statement alone constitutes the pay limits in this White Paper for the purposes of Section 1 of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975.
That is, of course, the statutory embodiment of the social contract. That is the device by which we have been ruled since March 1974. People sometimes think that the social contract came into being in 1975 when the Government's statutory incomes policy came into being. But it came into being from the moment the Labour Government came to power, and it was part of the deal when we had that test period of misgovernment which ran from March 1974 for a year or more when everything was allowed to rip.
There is some doubt about whether the social contract still exists. The House may remember that in answer to questions the Prime Minister told the House explicitly on 7th July this year that he

did not think that it was intact. By 14th July the Prime Minister decided that it was intact after all, and he gave a parliamentary answer to that effect. I do not know why there was a change of heart, but I have a feeling that the reason was that someone reminded the Prime Minister of the letter of intent to the IMF in which the Government promised to operate the social contract. Perhaps he was worried about saying that the social contract no longer existed, because that would have been a breach of the agreement with the IMF. In The Times of 25th July, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) tells us:
the social contract is still alive and well".
I find this order profoundly offensive. I do not object to the notion of the 12-month rule. If we are to have rules, that is probably a sensible one to have. Indeed, whether one has a statutory incomes policy or not a reasonable time between settlements is desirable.
I object to the way in which the TUC is allowed to issue a unilateral statement which is then translated into the law of the land. I object that we have had no chance to amend it. We have been given the statement on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The TUC sat down and issued a statement and the Government embodied it into the law. That is a disgraceful way for legislation to be operated.
We have not been allowed to debate this in draft form. It has been rammed down our throats. Normally, if there is a major piece of legislation in the form of an order we have a chance to debate it in draft. Tonight, however, the Secretary of State is asking us to pass the order. It is not a debate on the draft. That means that the Government cannot go away and make changes in response to hon. Members. There is no possibility of that. We have been presented with the TUC's statement. Even if the Government wanted to change their minds, they could do nothing because the statement comes from the TUC.
I do not blame the TUC. It is entitled to lay down its terms. There is nothing discreditable about that. But it is entirely discreditable that we should fall into this practice year after year and be unable to have a meaningful debate. This shows that the Government are bound hand and foot to an outside body.
There is a long tradition in our politics that the Government do not conduct deals with the outside world and then confront the House with a fait accompli. There was a famous speech by Mr. Aneurin Bevan, the hero of some hon. Members, which he made when speaking about a strikes incitement order. He said:
I have protested, on more than one occasion, about the Government going behind the back of Parliament, and reaching understandings with outside bodies, and then presenting Parliament with a fait accompli."—[Official Report, 28th April, 1944; Vol. 399, c. 1061.]
I believe that he was right in that principle. He was right to say that the Government should not come to the House and tell it that it must accept an agreement which had been fixed outside. It is insulting to the House that year after year we should be presented with this fait accompli.
I find the order offensive. If the Government by some mischance remain in power and try to continue in this way, they will do grave damage to Parliament.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: It is quite normal form that some Opposition Members should attack the technical conduct of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, now that he is a Minister, while singing praises about his glorious and wonderful past as such a competent Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. Opposition Members are always ready to praise members of the present Government for their past. Equally, it is not surprising that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) should now seek to glorify that great Socialist leader Aneurin Bevan. Remembering the way in which Conservatives used to treat him when he was alive, I believe that they ought to employ a certain amount of modesty when they make such references merely to suit their purposes.
The Secretary of State is representing the policy of the Government that is under discussion. Everyone knows in his heart of hearts that my right hon. Friend is as competent in running his Department as he has been in any other function that he has fulfilled in Parliament and in this country. That ought to be put on record before we proceed to any further discussion.
Hon. Members who laugh at the present conduct of my right hon. Friend

would be hard put to it to do half as well if they ever had responsibility of any kind comparable with the responsibility carried by my right hon. Friend. I notice some hon. Members who normally speak from the Opposition Front Bench hiding in the nooks and crannies and sniggering at my remarks. I express a particular statement of no confidence in their ability to do better than my right hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend's personal conduct is not what is at issue tonight. He is an excellent Secretary of State for Employment who cares about the principles of his job. Those who are shouting all the time for further cuts in public expenditure and who want a policy that would lead in no time to a far higher level of unemployment have no right to have the face to talk about the Secretary of State in the terms which the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) used when she opened the debate for the Opposition. It is the kind of folly and flippancy to which we are accustomed whenever she conducts a debate for the Opposition.
At all times the hon. Lady has a very difficult task whenever she is on her feet speaking. The task is to hide carefully from the electorate her party's policies and her personal policy, which is against the consumer. In order to do that, the hon. Lady carefully burns the midnight oil preparing a lot of twaddle and nonsense so that the electorate should not know and see the kind of anti-consumer policy that she always represents. [Interruption.] I know that the Opposition will not like hearing a few of these home truths, but they will have to listen to them all the same. It makes no difference where Opposition Members sit. I shall reach their ears just the same.
The hon. Lady did not answer the question. She tried to escape in a quotation from her right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who no more answered the essential question when it was put to her. The quotation will not help the hon. Lady. If the Opposition criticise the emptiness of the order—as they put it—they have to answer the question of whether they want a statutory incomes policy. Let us have an answer to that question. [Hon. Members: "Ask the Liberals."] Hon. Members must keep their shirts on. I am talking about the


Opposition. We are dealing with the spokesman of the official Opposition, and I am asking a precise question which ought to be answered by her. Is the Conservative Party in favour of a statutory incomes policy? If there is no answer to that question, Conservative Members have no right to make any criticism about vagueness or lack of detail in the order.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Mendelson: In my time—after we have dealt with some of the nonsense put forward by the hon. Lady.
Let us come to the hon. Lady's second point. She bitterly criticised the Government for not having a policy on wage limits for a third phase. She said that there is no phase 3. Has she just made a great discovery? Was not an announcement made by the Chancellor in his original statement? Is it not quite clear that there has been a decision by the trade union movement that the General Council of the TUC is not prepared to commit itself to a precise figure on wage limitation? Has not that been agreed between the parties which agreed phases 1 and 2? That self-evident truth should not have been presented by the hon. Lady as a great discovery. The hon. Lady has presented it because she wants to hide the present poverty of policy of the Conservative Party. It has no policy of any kind.
This is a suitable moment to rest my voice and to give way to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley).

Mr. Robert Adley: A moment ago the hon. Gentleman was eulogising his right hon. Friend as an outstanding Secretary of State for Employment. He used the phrase "his heart is in the right place". Does the hon. Gentleman prefer a Secretary of State whose heart is in the right place and who presides over 1½ million unemployed or a Secretary of State whose heart is slightly out of the right place but who presides over 500,000 unemployed?

Mr. Mendelson: I did not use that phrase, but I endorse it. I was addressing myself to the intellectual qualities of

my right hon. Friend. If the hon. Gentleman wants to add that my right hon. Friend also has his heart in the right place, I fully endorse that. There is nothing between us on that.
I now turn to more serious matters. Having dealt with the propagandist nonsense that we always get from the hon. Lady the Member for Gloucester in order to hide the poverty of her position, I turn to what really ought to be the subject of discussion—that is, the background to our present economic position against which this debate takes place.
I said earlier, and I repeat, that my right hon. Friend obviously represents the Cabinet's policy and not his personal policy. It is Government policy to which I wish to address myself. The monetarist nonsense—this is the real truth of our economic position—which has spread from the Opposition Benches into the offices of the Chancellor and the belief that a policy of the circulation of currency is the most decisive factor in determining the level of inflation are dealt with by one of the cardinal points of the Government's present economic strategy. Those things are unproved and untrue.
Secondly, while no one would deny that the level of wages plays a certain part in determining the level of prices and, therefore, the level of inflation, it is complete nonsense—which the last two years have proved—to think that this is the decisive factor. The Opposition have claimed that for years, and they have always been proved wrong.
The trouble with the Treasury at present is that there are too many pre-Keynesians and post-Keynesians—and not enough Keynesians—who do not understand the capitalist economic system. I recommend that there should be an early recruitment of a few more Keynesians into the offices of the Chancellor.
The position is—this will cause a sensation among the Tories—as was rightly pointed out by the Liberal Party spokesman during the economic debate in a profoundly interesting speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, it was. Only the blind fury of hon. Members on the Tory Benches makes them incapable of recognising a good performance by politicians whom they do not like. They


are completely lacking in any ability to listen objectively to a contribution to debate.
In that debate, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) pointed out quite correctly that we had now had this policy under monetarist influence for two years and that the result had not been to prove that wages were the decisive factor in the level of inflation. In fact, one of the main reasons for the present malaise in the trade union movement, as the Secretary of State knows, is that rank-and-file workers, when asked by their trade union leaders to discuss a possible phase 3, say "Nothing doing. We have had wage restraint for two years. Have we seen the result that you promised us?"

Mr. Adley: No.

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman shouts "No". He shouts the simple truth that everyone else knows. But what the Opposition do not admit is that, to the extent that their advice has been followed and wages have been kept back, our economy has gone down and down and the level of unemployment has increased.

Mr. Adley: It was ignored.

Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman shouts because he feels uncomfortable when he hears the truth. Like a little child, he shouts when it hurts. It will hurt a little more.
The real reason for the present level of unemployment has been seen and realised by quite a number of economists who work either in the City of London or at Common Market headquarters. Recently, it has been expressed publicly by a Common Market commission of economists; it was published in an EEC Commission report 12 days ago. It says categorically that what has been at fault in the British economy during the past 14 or 18 months is that deflation has been carried too far, that wage and salary levels have been too low and that not enough money has been distributed in wages and salaries, with the result that not enough has been bought, that there has not been enough purchasing power about, and that that is why the level of unemployment has increased. [Interruption.]
The lesson for the Government is that the only way in which the level of un-

employment can be reduced is by increasing wages and salaries and thereby allowing people to have more purchasing power—[Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who are more silent than the others understand the position much better than some of the cheap propagandists who keep interrupting me.
I turn to the provisions in the White Paper and the order, and I point to the kind of tactics which should follow their implementation in the present situation that I have described—and it is the true situation, although the truth is not to the liking of the Opposition. The tactics should lead in the direction of seeing to it that good sense prevails in the negotiations—not tying ourselves to artificial, paper limits but seeing that, in the traditional manner, there is good sense in the negotiations.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury declared himself to be outraged that the TUC's opinion and the statement of the General Council should be referred to in State papers. He questioned whether it was tolerable that a Government should make arrangements with bodies outside. He presented this as if it were a new discovery.
Over the past 35 years, all Governments have entered into arrangements and agreements with business associations, cartels, employers' organisations and so on and have presented policies to Select Committees here. Have not we, across the Floor, served together on various Standing Committees dealing with legislation, when hon. Members on both sides have asked why the Government agree so much with bodies outside and then present the result of their negotiations in legislative form?
It is outrageous nonsense to present the situation as though this Government had for the first time made arrangements with outside bodies. It is complete nonsense.

Mr. Raison: When have any previous Government included in their legislation a statement dictated by an outside body, a statement that the House has had no chance to amend or discuss?

Mr. Mendelson: What the hon. Gentleman criticises is that there are deals, as he would put it, or arrangements made with bodies outside the House. I have clearly


demonstrated that that practice has been going on for many years. It is monstrous nonsense to charge this Government with having done it for the first time. This is only a particularly open way of referring to the most important partner in arrangements on wages and salaries. I would much rather the Government did it openly in including the statement in a declaration of policy than did it secretly, then turning up in a Committee room and telling hon. Members "You must accept it."
I return to the question of the tactics which should follow in the application of the order and the interpretation and application of the White Paper. There should be a return to the traditional manner of wage bargaining. Whether Conservative hon. Members like it or not, the trade union movement and working people will determine that there is such a return. It is not up to the Opposition to decide it. In the seat where the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), normally sits, it should be much more easily realised than anywhere else that that is a simple truth.
The Government are rightly anxious that there should be an understanding that in the system of traditional wage bargaining there are bound to be problems, because not all sections are equally powerful, and the General Council has made a correct appeal to those who are powerful in industrial life to think of those in the lower income groups, the less well-organised sections, and many people in between. That applies not only to wage earners but to many salaried people in many positions.
The decisive guideline for my right hon. Friend—and I conclude on this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is the easiest joke in the world. If the Opposition are very provocative, I shall have to continue for some time.
I do not believe that the technical reply that we shall have from my hon. Friend the Minister of State on prices and dividends and the answer to the propagandist questions of the hon. Member for Gloucester are the crux of the debate. The crux is in the Cabinet. The Government should without delay announce the cancellation of the IMF loan and the

beginning of a policy of creating public works and new employment. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gloucester can laugh as much as she likes. She knows nothing about these matters. I am not speaking to please my right hon. Friends but am putting forward a policy. Let the Opposition not be so flippant. Let them study the situation carefully.
There are growing voices advocating that policy. The financial correspondent of The Guardian pointed out only a few days ago that, in view of the favourable balance of payments, the strength of sterling, which has strengthened further in the past two days, and the reserves being higher than they have been for 40 years, it is possible now to cancel the IMF loan and to start a new policy of reviving the economy and keeping sterling strong at the same time.
Unless the Government pursue that policy without delay, none of the technical points in the orders will make a ha'p'orth of difference. The Government must make a change in the cardinal economic strategy, completely in opposition to the foolish advice they receive from the Conservatives, who have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. The Opposition are economic Bourbons, who laugh and snigger but are as ignorant as they were at the time when Jarrow was destroyed. The Government must ignore their advice and break out from the monetarist policy and start a new policy of economic expansion.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) but will return to the order. I want to make some observations about its relationship with the Price Commission Act. No doubt the Minister will be able to give us some guidance.
First, however, I must endorse the way my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) dissected the paucity of the White Paper "The Attack on Inflation after 31st July 1977", Command 6882. It is extraordinary and different, despite the way the Secretary of State sought to reconcile it with previous policies. It is fundamentally different in the fact that its contents in no way have the same force as the previous document. It is something


quite separate. However, much the Chancellor may set out guidelines as to how he would like the economic management to be run, the only matter relating to the order is that contained in Annex A.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury was right to say that it was peculiar and deeply regrettable, as we see it, that that is the nexus of economic policy. It is not a social contract but a mere figleaf of what the social contract was. It is this tiny part of the White Paper which is important. When we come to the autumn, it will be interesting to see what colour the figleaf turns. When Arthur Scargill in the shape of Jack Frost causes the leaf to fall, I wonder what will happen. Nothing will be revealed except the pawnbroker's sign.
The White Paper and the consultative document on prices embody a period of consultation which expires on 18th July or thereabouts. Obviously, it was drafted when pay policy was in a different phase. In paragraph 21 it contains guidance on sanctions. The Chancellor's statement on 22nd July announcing the demise of phase 3 came after the consultations finished. What now is the state of consultation on the preceding document? Has the Chancellor to consult on how far in the new situation there will be involvement in pay for those operating pricing policy? What is the Minister's view of what happens in that period on the basis of that document?
We come to the Price Commission Act itself. The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, whom we are pleased to see here, knows well the anxieties which have been expressed that there was insufficient guidance for those operating the prices policy. In Standing Committee on the Price Commission Bill, he referred to this aspect when he said:
By that, I am implying that the sort of margin control that we envisaged for 1st August onwards would be impossible were there not another wage round. It would be a burden on industry which it could not reasonably be expected to bear.
The hon. Gentleman understands why I say that it is dangerous to speculate on these matters, and he will understand the danger of what I have just said. The danger is mitigated by the fact that I hope and believe that we shall have another wage round. By that, I mean a wage round which can be defined sufficiently precisely to be matched against margin control. But the two things must go

hand in hand. A free-for-all in one, if that is not too crude a phrase, would require a relaxation in the other."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 24th May 1977; col. 564.]
In other words, it would require relaxation of wages or margin control.
What, therefore, is the position now? How will the Price Commission operate? A free-for-all in wages would require a relaxation of margin controls. How will that operate? In the light of the Chancellor's statement and the document, how will investigation into prices and the interpretation of pay awards operate? No guidance is published. How can those who no longer have an allowable cost regime and no longer have guidance on prices or about how pay settlements should be made protect themselves from investigation into pricing? May we have a categoric assurance that only when there are two wage settlements in 12 months can an investigation into the prices policy from a wages standpoint be conducted? That is the only provision which the order makes, and it is the only way in which it relates to the Price Commission Act.
I am sure that it would benefit not only the House but those who have the difficult task of reconciling Government policies and of making commercial decisions if we could be told what will happen now that the Price Commission Act, with its power of investigation, is on the statute book. The pay policy is so transparent as to be impossible to interpret. If the Minister would apply his mind to that matter, we should be grateful

11.5 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I understand that this debate still has two and a half hours to run. Although I do not want to take up all that time, I wish to make a few remarks on one of the orders. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) has once again shown that the debate on economic policy is taking place not between the two sides of the House, but between the Back Bench Members on the Government side and the Government Front Bench.
The orders are extremely important, particularly the order concerned with the limits on remuneration. In some ways it is a fraudulent document. I was


informed that the only reason why we needed to pass Section 17 of the Price Commission Act—in other words, to re-legislate the relevant section of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act—was to allow the Government the power to pass legislation to protect employers from breaches of contract on pay. Therefore, employees who had contracts which provided that their pay must increase by a certain amount each year, which could be over and above any pay limits, would be able to take their employers to court if they did not observe the limits in their contracts. We passed the Act for that reason. The order is a necessary trigger mechanism to operate Section 4 of the Act.
The legislation does not apply to the overwhelming majority of workers in manufacturing industry, because they do not have contracts of employment which provide for regular increases in wages. I was informed that it applies only to such people as doctors and consultants and people in the upper reaches of the Civil Service whose yearly increments would take them over and above any of the pay limits of the two preceding years.
We have heard in the debate that there are no pay limits. Therefore, why do we need the order? The only need for it would be if an employer or the Government—because the Government could be the employer—tried to hide behind Section 4 of the Act in order not to pay wages which were contractually due. The legislation does not apply to workers in the building industry or the motor industry or in any other part of manufacturing industry. It applies to doctors, highly-paid civil servants and perhaps members of the Armed Forces—people whose contractual obligations require the payment of substantial pay increases which could be well over 10 per cent.
I should like to know how the Government see this aspect of the order working on Section 4. I have not gleaned any information on this matter from any hon. Member. What will happen in October, November or at any time up to next July if there is a pay claim by a group of workers who have a contractual right to a substantial increase?
It is only Section 4 of the 1975 Act that will protect employers. The order

refers to page 2 of Section 1 of the 1975 Act, but that is necessary to trigger off Section 4. If an employer is to tell his employees that they cannot have a pay increase which they are owed legally according to their contracts of employment, we shall need to pass the order.
I want some examples of the employees so covered, otherwise there is no sense in the order. What will happen, for example, to the doctors and to the consultants and the higher reaches of the medical profession? In this area contractual obligations are involved in incremental pay increases. Another case is that of the teachers, not the ordinary teachers in the classroom but the headmasters on £10,000 or £11,000 a year, and the chief education officers on £13,000 a year, whose incremental increase is far more substantial than the 10 per cent. limit.
It is these people at whom the order is directed. They are the only people who have a contractual right to very large increases. The employer—in most of these cases the Government—will want to tell those employees that they cannot take them to court and they cannot have their increases. The Government are hiding behind Section 4, and they can do it only if we pass the order tonight.
I want to have that on the record. 1 want to be able to go to the thousands of workers in my constituency who are not in these groups but who are in engineering and manufacturing industry and who have no contractual rights to any pay increase whatever. They have to get their increases by negotiation. I want to be able to tell them that the order will not affect them and that their employers cannot hide behind Section 4 triggered off by the order via Section 1. I want to tell them that their employers—whether they be British Leyland or GKN, both of whom have paid substantial increases to their directors over and above the pay policy—cannot hide behind Government policy now.
I am afraid that a red herring will be drawn across wage negotiations by the passing of the order. We are actually making legislation, albeit delegated legislation, and I want it confirmed on the record that it applies only to a highly selected bunch of people, as I was told by a Cabinet Minister a few weeks ago.


I want to be told in the winding-up speech that this is the only reason why the order is before the House. I want an assurance that the order will in no way extend to millions of workers who have no right to regulate ratchet pay increases.
If we do not have this on the record, it will make a mockery of the whole system and give the lie to what the Chancellor claims he wishes to create—a quasi-statutory pay policy of 10 per cent. That fox has been well and truly shot. The only fox that is still on the rampage is Section 4 of the 1975 Act, which gives wide immunity to employers.
I hope that in his reply the Minister of State will address his remarks to this aspect of the matter. He has plenty of time in which to do so because no other hon. Member rose to his feet when I sought to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, and we have until 1.30 a.m. to deal with the orders.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: The debate centres on three highly technical and complicated orders. I have formed the distinct impression that Labour Members have only a passing acquaintance with the orders and have not sought to deal with the points raised in them.
I should like to deal with the order dealing with prices. It is a fairly narrow, technical order, and the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) was critical of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) for choosing to refer to the previous assertions of the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. We all know that the hon. Member for Penistone does not support the Government's policy he has been open about it and has offered his own well-argued approach to economic problems. But we also know that in speech after speech the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has told the country and Parliament that the Government's policy was an entirely coordinated one on prices, wages and dividends and that if any aspect, especially the wages aspect, of that policy were to fail it would be impossible to defend the policy as a whole. That was the point to which attention was drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester.
Furthermore, the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection told the House over and over again that there must be a phase 3 and that it must be tightly drawn, otherwise margin, price and dividend controls would not be defensible. But we do not have a phase 3. Therefore, my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester and for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) had every right to point to the fact that what was supposed to be a co-ordinated policy is now in bits and that the reputation of the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection is in tatters.
I shall not bore the House with quotations, but time and again the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has argued the importance of a tight phase 3, and we do not have one. Therefore, the Government's policy of price, margin and dividend controls is no longer intellectually defensible in the present situation. I share that view. Government policy is falling apart at the seams, and it is most unfair to launch a personal attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, who advanced a carefully prepared argument. The hon. Member for Penistone should instead concentrate his fire on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, who has been misleading the House and the country for several months.
The hon. Member for Penistone paid a sincere tribute to the Secretary of State for Employment—and certainly nobody on this side of the House would wish to criticise the right hon. Gentleman, who is widely respected in all parts of the House. But the hon. Member for Penis-tone then said that his right hon. Friend did not believe in the Government's policy. That explains why the Secretary of State for Employment was so unconvincing in introducing the three orders tonight. Many of us wondered why the right hon. Gentleman was so hesitant and could not answer the questions that were put to him. At any rate, the hon. Member for Penistone has now given us the clue—that his right hon. Friend does not believe in the orders.
The official Opposition find it offensive that Annex A to the White Paper should be the basis of the Government's incomes policy. One sentence in that annex states:
This statement alone constitutes the pay limits in this White Paper for the purposes


of Section 1 of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975.
That statement is the only thing that the Government have that can be described as an incomes policy. One might expect that such a statement would have been made by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or some other senior member of the Government. However, the statement is headed "TUC Statement of 22nd June". It is a statement by the General Council of the TUC. The only remuneration policy that the Government have is a statement by the TUC General Council.
It is not even the policy of the TUC as adopted by the TUC Congress. What will happen if the Congress rejects that policy? We in the House will be put in an absurd position by having approved as policy something that the TUC has thrown out. We shall have dignified, by way of passing an order, something that has no standing. This is simply a declaration of intent that the TUC General Council will try to get adopted as policy.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Penistone really thinks that it enhances the dignity of the House for us publicly to approve, as a linchpin of the Government's economic policy, a statement by a body which cannot commit its members until they have voted, especially when those members will not vote on the matter for several months. We do not think that Parliament comes out of that particular incident with any stock of dignity at all. Does the hon. Member for Penistone think that it does? How can he defend that? The Secretary of State has, by implication, admitted that the Government do not have a wages policy, yet a non-policy on wages is being used as a pretext for continuing a policy of margin control, prices control and dividend restraint. The absurdity of that position is that the absence of a policy is being used as an excuse for getting Parliament to approve two other aspects of the Government's policy—although the Secretary of State has said repeatedly that Parliament should be asked to approve not two orders out of three but three out of three.
By passing this order we shall dignify a non-policy. Something that is not a policy has been incorporated in something called a White Paper. It will be

approved by the House tonight without our really knowing what it is. Yesterday the hon. Member for Penistone gave us a great speech about the importance of maintaining the dignity of Parliament. Are we doing that tonight by approving something that does not exist and using that as an excuse for continuing to set forms of restraint?
I now turn to the order referring to dividend controls. Nobody, on either side of the House, has attempted to defend dividend controls on the basis of such controls making financial or economic sense. Not one hon. Member has attempted to do that. I have read one or two half-hearted attempts to suggest that if a company cannot pay dividends it might just retain profits and invest them, and that companies are being given an incentive to invest because if they need more money for investment they can put up dividends. However, nobody has attempted to justify the controls on such grounds tonight.
The present dividend controls are shot through with exemptions of various kinds. They include exemptions in the case of takeovers, for overseas companies and for companies with assets and activities that are mainly overseas. One can point to a whole range of slightly illogical exemptions. One of the unattractive features of dividend controls is that they give enormous discretion to bureaucrats to decide which company shall be allowed to keep profits and which shall not. There is an enormous and potentially unhealthy discretion for bureaucrats.
What is the argument that is used over and over again? It is not that dividend controls are fair or make economic sense. It is that they are part of the trade-off for wage restraint. No one put it better than the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas). The objections to dividend restraints as argued by Labour Members are totally out of date; they are bigoted and do not make sense.
In 1963, 69 per cent, of all the shares quoted in this country were held by individuals. By 1973 that figure was down to 50 per cent., and in 1977 it is down to 34 per cent. Institutional shareholdings were 21 per cent. in 1963 and 35·6 per cent. in 1973, and they are 52 per cent. in 1977. Charities, which include trade unions, the churches and universities, hold 5 per cent. of the balance.
There is, therefore, a major shift towards institutional shareholding. Most of the institutions which hold the shares are pension funds. Pension funds now have nearly 11 million subscribers, while life assurance and insurance companies have no fewer than 14 million household subscribers.
It is, therefore, total nonsense to say that dividend income is going to the rich. The overwhelming proportion is going to institutions, and those institutions are holding the shares on behalf of 11 million pensioners and 14 million households. The dividends from those shareholdings go to millions of ordinary people indirectly through the institutions.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am genuinely asking the hon. Gentleman for information. He has quoted no figures for beneficial and family trusts. I have today had a company return in which a director discloses that his own shareholding is 1,750,000, while his family beneficial trust has 5 million shares. How many people are in that situation?

Mr. Parkinson: I understand that all the non-institutional holdings are treated as individual shareholdings. Most trust shares, for example, are held by trustees. I declare an interest. I am a trustee myself of one or two settlements from my time as a chartered accountant. Those shares are registered in my name as a trustee. They are part of a personal holding. The point is that the overwhelming proportion of dividends goes now to the pension funds and the institutions. [Interruption.] If Labour Members opposite do not wish to accept my statement, I will tell them that my remarks are based on the report of the Diamond Commission, which is freely and readily available.
The Diamond Commission points out that of individual shareholders, of whom there are 2·1 million, 50 per cent. in 1972–73 had a total statutory income from all sources of less than £2,000 a year—that is, with their pensions and their interest on savings—while 25 per cent. had a total statutory income of under £1,000. In other words, these people are amongst the poorest section of the community. Forty per cent. of all personal shareholders are widows and elderly single ladies.
The truth is that dividend restraint is achieving those ends. It is affecting the pensions of those who are retired. It is affecting the expectations of the millions who will retire and who will depend on pension funds for their future security. It bears most heavily on the shareholders with the lowest incomes. That is a fact. I should be happy to establish that, but Labour Members must take my assurance that it is stated by the Diamond Commission that that is the case. Dividend restraint bears most heavily, as it must, on those with the smallest incomes. They are those who get the most benefit because they get virtually all the dividend, very little of it going in tax. It is extremely unfair.
It is quite untrue to say that dividend restraint has not been effective. If hon. Members examine the figures, they will see that it has been extremely effective. Dividends have increased since 1963 by 12 per cent. at a time when earnings were increasing by over 91 per cent. What dividend restraint has succeeded in doing is inexplicably bizarre. At a time when we need investment and investors, it has succeeded in driving investors away from the equity markets. I can give Labour Members a good example. The National Union of Railwaymen prefers to buy Picassos and to go to the Mentmore sale and buy expensive antiques at a time when the Government are lecturing us about the need for new investment. The NUR and others prefer to invest in antiques, for example, because investment in equities is appalling. One of the principal reasons is dividend restraint.
One of the bizarre results of dividend restraint is that it is best to invest in companies which are trading overseas instead of investing in companies that are trading here. Surely that cannot in any way be sensible. Thirdly, it is driving pension funds away from investment in equities. I talked to the manager of a major fund today. He is the manager of a nationalised industry pension fund. He said that he would like to invest in equities but that if he did so it could only be at the expense of his members. He explained that the fund had been driven back into the property market, there now being no rent control in that sector.
That is the pension fund manager of a major nationalised industry. He is saying "We cannot afford to invest in equities. We cannot afford to invest the savings of the workers in equities. We must put them in property." That is at a time when the country needs investment.
By any standards, dividend restraint has produced the wrong results. It has done damage to very needy sections of the community. It is destroying the future pension prospects of millions of working people, the sort of people about whom Labour Members are fond of lecturing us. The people suffering most from dividend restraint are the very people that they talk about time after time.

Mr. Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the dividend control that he is blaspheming about was set up by the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 and that, as a member of the Tory Party that was in Government at the time, he voted for it?

Mr. Parkinson: I am giving the hon. Gentleman a chance of joining me in the Lobby and proving that from time to time one makes mistakes. If he had been in the Chamber at the beginning of my remarks, he would know that I said that dividend restraint, wage restraint and price restraint as a package might be defensible but that dividend restraint and price restraint in the absence of wage restraint are indefensible. I was explaining that dividend restraint was damaging the interests of some of the most needy and poor in this country.

Mr. John MacGregor: My hon. Friend has built up a most formidable case, but does he agree that the position is even worse in that dividend restraint prevents investments in equities, industry and companies and that the Government, by giving preferential tax treatment to Government savings, are encouraging people to put their savings—this applies especially to those who pay high rates of tax—into Government savings and not into equities because of the heavy tax that is imposed? At least, the ending of dividend restraint would remove some of that.

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the most bizarre features is that in the last two years the

Stock Exchange—much belaboured by Labour Members—has raised £16,000 million for the Government in the gilt market and only £2·7 million in equities, because the Government have been paying and offering rates of return that the equity market could not match. Yet at the same time Labour Members are calling for more and more investment.
I am determined to finish this speech, despite a number of interruptions. The prices order is technical. It is a simple list of exemptions and it is not worth voting on. The wages order is a non-order. One would not know what one was voting for or against. It is a non-piece of legislation. Therefore, there is no point in taking a strong view about that. I have tried to show that dividend control is unfair and damaging to the interests of millions of pensioners and people with low incomes and to British industry. For those reasons, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the order on dividend restraint when the time comes.

11.37 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): We now have the answer to a question that we have been putting to the Opposition for some time. We now know that they have no policy on incomes or on prices but that they have a well-developed policy on dividends.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) said that the purchase of shares adds to investment. The purchase of shares does not add to investment. It enables money from one source to be put into the hands of somebody else who is selling the shares.
The only real investment is subscribing for new capital issued on the market. There are criteria on dividend control that allow a company to increase its dividends to raise new capital for investment. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) complained about. Indeed, he complained that the British Sugar Corporation was permitted by the Treasury to increase its rate of dividend to raise money for new investment. The Labour Party is in favour of new investment because it is in favour of creating jobs. There is no conflict between dividend control as it is operated and the provision of proper investment.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I referred to the British Sugar Corporation because, as my hon. Friend knows, rationalisation is going on at the moment. The position vis-à-vis Tate and Lyle and the British Sugar Corporation is such that my hon. Friend's words do not apply to the British Sugar Corporation.

Mr. Fraser: I should have thought that my hon. Friend would be in favour of greater investment if it created jobs.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Yes.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South referred to the effect of dividend control on the incomes of those who invest in pension funds and rely on the dividends as part of their income. Any form of dividend control involves a degree of hardship, just as income control has involved a degree of hardship for workers who have settled within the pay limits over the past two years. It is for that reason that from the end of the year beginning on 1st August 1977 there will be no further dividend control. However, the hon. Gentleman exaggerated the position when he said that the Diamond Report suggested that the control bears unfavourably on the poorest in our community. The evidence does not bear that out.

Sir John Eden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fraser: No. The right hon. Gentleman has not been present for most of the debate.

Mr. Parkinson: Perhaps I may quote from paragraph 19 of the second Diamond Report:
Under a system of progressive taxation, any general increase in dividend payments would accrue in greater measure, relative to total dividend receipts, to shareholders in the lower income ranges than to those in the higher.
Lord Diamond is saying exactly what I said—that dividend restraint affects the poorer more than it affects the rich.

Mr. Fraser: I said that it bears unfairly on the poorest.

Sir J. Eden: I may have misheard the Minister, and for that reason I should be grateful if he would make clear what he said. I thought I heard him say that there would be no further dividend

restraint after 1977. If he said that, will he repeat it so that we may all hear it?

Mr. Fraser: Perhaps I phrased the point badly. I thought I said that there would be no further dividend restraint at the end of the year beginning 1st August 1977; in other words, not after 1st August 1978. That was what I thought I said.
I turn now to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about the operation of the 12-month rule. As for immunity against actions, if application is made to enforce a contractual settlement within 12 months of the phase 2 settlement the employer possesses immunity against meeting the claim. My hon. Friend said that those whom he represented did not make contractual claims and had no contractual rights for the future. He said that they negotiated. In that case the answer is that if they negotiate a claim which breaks the 12-month rule, other than a self-financing productivity deal, if they have a settlement within 12 months of the stage 2 settlement there is no defence against a contractual obligation under the 1975 Act because that obligation is only created by the Act. The employer is caught by the pay sanction which would operate through the margin controls.

Mr. Leon Brittan: If the Minister is saying that it is right that dividend limitation should exist until the summer of next year, why is it wrong that it should continue after that date?

Mr. Fraser: There is an interrelation between prices restraint, wages restraint and dividend restraint. The three hang together.
The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) asked me two questions. The first concerned the completion of negotiations on the Price Code. The answer to that is that the negotiations are complete and that the results of the negotiations will be published soon, possibly before the end of the week.
The hon. Member for Pudsey also asked me about the relationship between a breach of the 12-month rule and investigations under the Price Commission Act. There will be no investigations under the Act as a result of a breach of the 12-month rule. The pay sanction


will operate by way of deduction from the margin which will be allowed under the Price Code document. I hope that that distinction is clear.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Since the consultation period has finished there is now no opportunity for Parliament to discuss the matter until the order is laid in the autumn. What is the position for firms operating from 1st August which are not clear about how the Commission will operate? Is the Minister saying that there is no relationship between the 12-month period and the cause of investigation?

Mr. Fraser: Yes. If the Price Commission were to choose to investigate on that ground, it would be in breach of the long-debated criteria contained in Section 2 of the Price Commission Act. There is an interrelationship between the 12-month rule and the deduction of margins. If the Price Commission chose a breach of the 12-month rule as the basis for investigation, it would run foul of Section 2.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), rather like a man in search of the Holy Grail, is in search of obscurity. The pay limit is set out clearly. It is simple to understand. It involves maintaining for 12 months the rate of pay which was settled during phase 2. Employers would be in no difficulty about understanding what that limit was for a period of 12 months from the phase 2 settlement, because the records of that settlement would be within their knowledge. It is necessary to refer to the previous White Paper on pay only in order to set and define the starting point for the 12-month rule. The interpretation of this part of the White Paper is absolutely clear.

Mr. Graham Page: This is not in addition to or in substitution for the previous White Paper limit and, therefore, the Minister has no power to make the order.

Mr. Fraser: I shall not try to cross swords with the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). These matters have been before the Scrutiny Committee, and I must ask the House to accept that the vires are proper.
The Opposition object to our incorporating in a White Paper and subsequently in legislation a statement issued by the TUC and agreed by the Government.

We do not live in a perfect world. We have three choices. We have the choice of having a statutory incomes policy which was rejected by the Opposition. Our second choice is to have no policy at all for an orderly return to free collective bargaining. I gather from many remarks from the Opposition that that is what they want—no policy at all for an orderly return to free collective bargaining.
We also have the choice of proceeding on the realistic basis of consent and understanding with the representatives of millions of workers. To proceed on that basis of consent is the most realistic and most sensible way in which to go about these matters, and it is a way, incidentally, which has been agreed and adopted over the past two years. It is a way that has worked and has been without breach. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Yes, it has worked. There has not been a breach of the pay limits established with the TUC over the past two stages. But, as we and the TUC have always made clear, we wanted eventually an orderly return to free collective bargaining. That is what we propose to have during the forthcoming pay round.
These orders support and reinforce our counter-inflation policy. It is true that in the past the operation of this policy has been difficult, for both prices policy and incomes policy. But we shall have several things in our favour when this new policy starts its course on 1st August. We have better omens and better prospects of success than we have had for many years. In the past we have been hammered and buffeted by many forces which are beyond our control. We have no control over the price of oil charged by Saudi Arabia or other parts of the world. We were buffeted by that price increase, which was a surcharge on the British people, and the cost of it has now been absorbed.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury) rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Fraser: We have been buffeted.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Fraser: We have been buffeted, too—

Mr. Nigel Lawson: Windy.

Mr. Fraser: —by forces beyond our control, such as a devaluation and a fall in the value of sterling, and by the drought last year. [Interruption.] Yes. They are two items that have affected gravely that most sensitive area of prices—food prices. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must let the Minister complete his statement, and I want to hear what he is saying.

Mr. Fraser: The consequences of those effects on food prices have now, however, largely disappeared, so we are entering a period of greater stability—a period of stability of sterling, of falling wholesale prices, of input prices one-quarter below output prices, and of falling interest rates which in the past have put a burden on both industry and private consumers. We contemplate the benefits of the last two years of pay policy.

Mr. Brittan: Rising unemployment.

Mr. Fraser: We now stand at a point where the prize of fighting inflation is within our grasp—

Mr. Brittan: One and a half million unemployed.

Mr. Fraser: —and in the last year of that fight we must not throw it away.
Nothing that I have heard tonight from the Opposition, including particularly the giggling and the lightheartedness with which some hon. Members approach these matters a few minutes before the debate is to end, leads me to believe that they want to see success. Why it that? They have invested pretty heavily in failure and they are now sick with the bitter taste of the success of the present Government. [Interruption.]

Mr. Brittan: Mr. Brittanrose—

Mr. Fraser: They know that the signs are in our favour.

Mr. Brittan: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Fraser: No. That is why they want to oppose not all but some of these orders tonight.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 165.

Division No. 228]
AYES
[11.55 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Cowans, Hairy
Golding, John


Anderson, Donald
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Gould, Bryan


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Armstrong, Ernest
Crawshaw, Richard
Grant, John (Islington C)


Ashton, Joe
Cronin, John
Grocott, Bruce


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hardy, Peter


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davidson, Arthur
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bates, Alf
Davies, Derail (Llanelli)
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Bean, R. E.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Heffer, Eric S.


Beith, A. J.
Deakins, Eric
Hooley, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hooson, Emlyn


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dempsey, James
Horam, John


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Dormand, J. D.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Huckfield, Les


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dunnett, Jack
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Bradley, Tom
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Eadle, Alex
Hunter, Adam


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Evans, John (Newton)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Canavan, Dennis
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
John, Brynmor


Carmichael, Neil
Faulds, Andrew
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Carter, Ray
Flannery, Martin
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Judd, Frank


Clemitson, Ivor
Forrester, John
Kaufman, Gerald


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Kerr, Russell


Cohen, Stanley
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lamborn, Harry


Coleman, Donald
Freeson, Reginald
Lamond, James


Conlan, Bernard
Freud, Clement
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Leadbitter, Ted


Corbett, Robin
Ginsburg, David
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)




Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
O Halloran, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Luard, Evan
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stallard, A. W.


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Ovenden, John
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Futham)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Stoddart, David


McCartney, Hugh
Palmer, Arthur
Stott, Roger


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Parry, Robert
Strang, Gavin


McElhone, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Penhaligon, David
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Phipps, Dr Colin
Tinn, James


Maclennan, Robert
Prescott, John
Torney, Tom


McNamara, Kevin
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Urwin, T. W.


Madden, Max
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Magee, Bryan
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Mahon, Simon
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Robinson, Geoffrey
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Marks, Kenneth
Roderick, Caerwyn
Ward, Michael


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rodgers. George (Chorley)
Watkins, David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rooker, J. W.
Watkinson, John


Meacher, Michael
Roper, John
Wellbeloved, James


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Rose, Paul B.
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Mendelson, John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Willey. Rt Hon Frederick


Mikardo, Ian
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Ryman, John
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Sandelson, Neville
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Sedgemore, Brian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Molloy, William
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Woodall, Alec


Moonman, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Woof, Robert


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Moyle, Roland
Skinner, Dennis



Newens, Stanley
Small, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Noble, Mike
Snape, Peter
Mr. Ted Graham and


Ogden, Eric
Spearing, Nigel
Mr, Joseph Harper




NOES


Adley, Robert
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Moate, Roger


Arnold, Tom
Goodhew, Victor
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Goodlad, Alastair
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Awdry, Daniel
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morgan, Geraint


Baker, Kenneth
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Banks, Robert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Bell, Ronald
Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey


Benyon, W.
Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael


Blaker, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Newton, Tony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Normanton, Tom


Bottomley, Peter
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hawkins, Paul
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hayhoe, Barney
Osborn, John


Brittan, Leon
Hicks, Robert
Page, John (Harrow West)


Brooke, Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Brotherton, Michael
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Buck, Antony
Hurd, Douglas
Farkinson, Cecil


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
James, David
Pattie, Geoffrey


Carlisle, Mark
Jessel, Toby
Pink, R. Bonner


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Churchill, W. S.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kimball, Marcus
Raison, Timothy


Clark, William (Croydon S)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rathbone, Tim


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knox, David
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Clegg, Walter
Lamont, Norman
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Cockcroft, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cope, John
Lawson, Nigel
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Crouch, David
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Drayson, Burnaby
Luce, Richard
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
McCrindle, Robert
Sainsbury, Tim


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Neil
Scott, Nicholas


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacGregor, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Elliott, Sir William
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Emery, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shersby, Michael


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marten, Neil
Sims, Roger


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mates, Michael
Sinclair, Sir George


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mather, Carol
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mayhew, Patrick
Smith, Timothy (Ashfield)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Speed, Keith


Forman, Nigel
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Fox, Marcus
Mills, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stanbrook, Ivor







Stanley, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Weather ill, Bernard


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Vaughan, Dr Gerald
Wells, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Viggers, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Tapsell, Peter
Wakeham, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Tebbit, Norman
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Winterton, Nicholas


Temple-Morris, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Wall, Patrick
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Townsend, Cyril D.
Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Peter Morrison

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Counter-Inflation (Continuation of Enactments) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 22nd July, be approved.

REMUNERATION

Motion made, and Question put,
That the draft Limits on Remuneration Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 22nd July, approved.—[Mr. Booth.]

The House divided:Ayes 172, Noes 1.

Division No. 229]
AYES
[12.09 a.m.


Anderson, Donald
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Moyle, Roland


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Golding, John
Noble, Mike


Armstrong, Ernest
Gould, Bryan
Ogden, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Graham, Ted
O' Halloran, Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Ovenden, John


Bates, Alf
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Bean, R. E.
Hardy, Peter
Palmer, Arthur


Beith, A. J.
Harper, Joseph
Parry, Robert


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Pavitt, Laurie


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Pendry, Tom


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Penhaligon, David


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Phipps, Dr Colin


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hooley, Frank
Prescott, John


Bradley, Tom
Hooson, Emlyn
Rees, Rt Hon Mertyn (Leeds S)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Horam, John
Robinson, Geoffrey


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Huckfield, Les
Roderick, Caerwyn


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rocker, J. W.


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Roper, John


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rose, Paul B.


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Carter, Ray
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Clemitson, Ivor
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Sandelson, Neville


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Sedgemore, Brian


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Small, William


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Judd, Frank
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Gerald
Snape, Peter


Cowans, Harry
Lamborn, Harry
Spearing, Nigel


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Lamond, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Crawshaw, Richard
Leadbitter, Ted
Stallard, A. W.


Cronin, John
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Luard, Evan
Stoddart, David


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stott, Roger


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Strang, Gavin


Davidson, Arthur
McCartney, Hugh
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)
McElhone, Frank
Urwin, T. W.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Deakins, Eric
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunnett, Jack
Magee, Bryan
Wellbeloved, James


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mahon, Simon
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Eadie, Alex
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Woodall, Alec


Evans, John (Newton)
Meacher, Michael
Woof, Robert


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Young, David (Bolton E)


Forrester, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)



Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fraser, John (Lambeth, (N'w'd)
Moonman, Eric
Mr. James Tinn and


Freeson. Reginald
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Thomas Cox.


Freud, Clement
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)





NOES



Leadbitter, Ted




TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Dennis Skinner and




Mr. Dennis Canavan.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that it is customary for the Tellers to observe the courtesies of the House.

PRICES AND CHARGES

Resolved,
That the draft Price Investigation and Examination (Exceptions) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 22nd July, be approved.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the draft Redundancy Payments (Variation of Rebates) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 25th July, be approved.—[Mr. Booth.]

12.23 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This draft order purports to be made by the Secretary of State in the exercise of powers conferred on him by Section 1(1) and Section (3) of the Redundancy Rebates Act 1977. But the Redundancy Rebates Act 1977 has not been printed, there is no copy in the Vote Office and there is no reference at the foot of the page. How can we deal with an order and see whether the Secretary of State has power to make it if the Act is not before us?

Mr. Speaker: The responsibility for this order is the Minister's. I cannot go into it any further.

12.24 a.m.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the important point put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). Is it right to seek the approval of the House for an order when the legislation under which the order is being made is not available to hon. Members?
I shall recall briefly the dubious ancestry of the order. Twelve months ago

the Government got their figures wrong about the state of the Redundancy Payments Fund. They thought that it was running into an increasing deficit whereas when the true situation became known, it was, in fact, moving into an increasing surplus. Nevertheless, the Government attempted first to push through legislation based on the "phoney" calculation that the fund was going into surplus. That legislation was defeated on Second Reading—the first time in 90 years that a Government had been defeated on Second Reading.
The Government, unwilling to accept the clear verdict of the House, tried again to bring in a rather more devious piece of legislation. On that occasion they succeeded in getting a majority and in getting the measure passed into law, although it seems to have been beyond their abilities to get the text drafted and printed so that it would be available for hon. Members to study.
The latest act of this discreditable tale is this order, which will reduce from 50 to 41 per cent. the rebates available for firms which have to make redundancy payments.
This squalid measure gives the Government an enforced loan at the expense not of the strong but of the weak—namely, firms which have to make workers. redundant. How shameful it is that the Department of Employment, on the day after we have had record high unemployment figures announced, is to be forced to bring in this leech-like provision that will suck a little more out of industry, which already faces difficulties. Cutting the redundancy rebates in this way will destroy jobs and create no new ones. Ministers know this to be so, but they have not the courage to resist Treasury pressure and they do not appear to have the self-respect to come to the House to seek approval for such an unnecessary change in our redundancy arrangements. We shall vote against this squalid measure. It will do great harm and it should be rejected.

Mr. David Mitchell: I do not wish to detain the House, but this is a matter to which we should pay considerable attention since it is one of the engines by which unemployment is going up and we should not pass the order without examining it and calling for an explanation. I believe I am right in saying that this matter was not announced when the Business Statement was made last Thursday. We have not, therefore, had an opportunity to examine it properly.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I may help the House and the hon. Gentleman by saying that the scope of this debate is confined to the question of whether it is appropriate to make the proposed reduction in rebate and that the principle of redundancy rebates is not at issue.

Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to pursue the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page.) Is it not an affront to the House to invite it to approve an order under an Act that is not available in the Vote Office? In accordance with a precedent followed by the Government earlier this Session, would it not be appropriate if we were to defer consideration of the order until we have available to us the Act which is the parent Act of the order we are discussing? Have not the Government acknowledged on a previous occasion, on the Coal Industry Bill, that it was not appropriate for us to discuss a matter of this kind until we had all the appropriate documents available to the House?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman answered his own point of order when he referred to the Government deciding something. I do not take any decision. Therefore, there can be no point of order.

James Prior: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have a statement from the Government on whether they think it right to proceed on an order of this nature when the parent Act is not available to the House?

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to the House that the Act is not available in the Vote

Office. This is the fifth time that this matter has been before the House, and on each occasion I have stressed the importance and urgency of getting the measure through. This is a matter for the House to decide.

Mr. Graham Page: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In deference to your ruling, since I first raised the matter I have given time for Ministers to discover that I was right. There is no copy of the Act in the Vote Office. There is not even a chapter reference to it. I should have thought that a copy could have been produced by now. If the matter is so urgent, the Government ought to have provided us with a copy of the Act.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman heard the Minister's statement. It is not my responsibility. I follow the Order Paper.

Mr. David Crouch: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not satisfied with the so-called answer that the Minister has given. No matter how late it is, if we are to be asked as a House to put up with absolute incompetence and with not having in front of us the papers upon which we must make decisions, on behalf of my constituents I must say that that is not good enough. It is not possible for us to vote on such an issue tonight. I feel extremely strongly about this sheer incompetence on the part of the Government. Parliament cannot go into recess with such a demonstration of incompetence. I protest most strongly.

Mr. Gow: Further to the point of order, Mr Speaker. It will be within your recollection that on an earlier occasion, last month, the Leader of the House agreed that, because certain papers that we should have had were not available, it would not be right for the House to consider the matter in question. Since the Leader of the House is not here tonight, would it not be appropriate for the Minister to ask the right hon. Gentleman to come? In the absence of the Leader of the House, we Back Benchers look to you, Mr Speaker, for protection.

Mr. Hayhoe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister has claimed urgency to excuse the incompetence of the Government in the matter,


could one remind him that the Government first announced the introduction of this legislation on 22nd July 1976? How, in the face of that, can the Government now claim urgency? That beggars description. Of course the Government should now withdraw the order, in view of these important points of order, and I call upon Ministers to do so. If they have not the authority, let a member of the Cabinet—the Secretary of State for Employment or the Leader of the House—come to the House and take the necessary action.

Mr. Speaker: I can add nothing to what I have already said.

Mr. Graham Page: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said earlier that this was not a matter for you, but. with great respect, I question that. Can we not ask you to protect Back Benchers of the House when we are asked to debate a subject without the papers being in front of us? It could be that we shall wish to argue that the order is completely ultra vires, and we shall not be able to do that without having the papers before us. It seems to me that this is a matter for your concern in protecting Back Benchers from impositions by the Government.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to ask the Leader of the House, who is behind your Chair, to act not as a member of the Government but as the protector of Back Benchers on both sides of the House?

Mr. Crouch: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. I have already said that I am not happy with the statement by the Minister of State. I, too, must look to you to protect the interests of Back Benchers who are seeking to protect the interests of their constituents, who have sent us here to decide matters. How can we decide matters on which we have no papers? Parliament is held in contempt by some people because it is seen that we do not pay sufficient attention to the procedures of the place. I maintain to you that, if we allowed this matter to go to a vote tonight, that would not be the proper way to deal with it because we have not had the opportunity as a House of knowing the full facts since we have no papers before us. It is not possible

for us to make a decision by a vote without having the papers. It is not good enough for the Minister simply to say that the matter is urgent.

Mr. Prior: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. A matter of principle is involved here. [Interruption.] I can assure Labour Members that, while this may appear to them to be a comparatively small matter, when they are on this side of the House again and other things happen they will take a rather different view. A House of Commons matter is involved.
If the Government do not produce the papers, the House cannot come to a proper decision. In the circumstances, it would be quite reasonable for the Government to withdraw the order tonight. The Leader of the House is around the Chamber now although he is not in it. It would not be asking too much of any Leader of the House to say that he will withdraw the order. This is a comparatively small matter in itself, but it involves a matter of high principle for hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not think that we should let this go through, and I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to let it go through in this form because there is this matter of principle. I appeal to the Government, from their own point of view as well as from ours, to treat this as a House of Commons matter and to withdraw the order now.

Mr. Harold Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the indignation of the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and his hon. Friends, but surely the proper way to express it is in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is seldom that I raise a point of order with you, but I do so now as a Back Bencher because we look to you to protect our interests. The Minister has suggested that the best place to deal with this matter is in the Division Lobby. Will you, in the interests of Back Benchers, say to the House that we cannot go into the Division Lobby tonight on a very important matter—and it is important, whatever Labour Members below the Gangway may think—because we have not had the papers and the Act?
How can we make a decision when we have not got the facts? Surely, if you are to represent and stand up for the interests of this House and of Back Benchers, you should advise the Government that we cannot proceed at this time and that they should withdraw the order.

Mr. John Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to consider our interests for another reason that may possibly have escaped your notice. We are aware that the relevant Act is not available at the moment and that the order refers to the original Act in several places—namely, in the preamble, which states that the Secretary of State is granted his power to introduce the order by virtue of Section 1 (1) and 1 (3) of the original Act. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker—in so doing I ask you to protect the interests of the House.—that it is not possible for us to ascertain whether the Secretary of State is exceeding the powers that the Act has granted him if the Act is not available for reference. It may be that the Secretary of State is doing no more and no less than the Act says he may do, but we must have the evidence before us so that we can question him properly if and when we proceed with the order. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a matter for you to concern yourself with on our behalf.

Mr. Tony Durant: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to reflect that earlier in the Session hon. Members on both sides of the House refused to consider the EEC document for the approximation of taxation of commercial vehicles because there was doubt whether the correct document was before us. This is not a party political matter. It does not matter whether it is a redundancy payments order or a commercial vehicle taxation order. The point is that if the document is not before the House we cannot give the issue proper consideration. When the EEC document came before the House, hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber got together—it did not matter whether they supported our membership of the Common Market or whether they did not—and refused to consider it. I find it rather depressing that there is no Labour Member who appears to take the point. It has nothing to do with the merits or desirability of passing the order; it is

merely that the correct document is not before the House. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Government and ordinary Back Bench Members to consider the position fairly and squarely in that light.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not long since we discussed treating the House with contempt. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, that there may be no greater contempt than to assume that the House is a rubber stamp that is prepared to accept that which it has not read. How can the House possibly consider and judge a document that it has not had an opportunity of reading? Not only has it not had the opportunity to see the document; it has not had the opportunity to consider it. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is contempt of the House, which we may need to consider further at a later stage, that we are being called upon by Ministers and the Leader of the House to take such a course. The Leader of the House, who is available, near the Chamber, does not choose to come in. What greater contempt can there be than to lurk outside the Chamber and not come in to face the House and explain one's reasons?

Mr. Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It would appear that the Chair has been put in an intolerable position. No one can question the fact that the Chair has no concern in what the Government may or may not put on the Order Paper. It would be wrong of anyone to try to suggest that that is the responsibility of the Chair. We all know that it is not. However, it is of considerable importance that the House is frequently criticised when legislation gets on to the statute book which is inaccurate or has been imprecisely considered. It seems to be a matter for the Chair to try to ensure that the legislation that leaves the House is as accurate in its legal aspects as is humanly possibly.
The point that has been made time and again is that if hon. Members are unable to see whether the references that are made in the order are accurate according to the statute we are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) said, being asked to act as a rubber stamp. I ask you to consider, Mr. Speaker, whether it is fair to point out to


Ministers that it has always been the responsibility of the Department and the responsibility of the Minister in charge of whatever the business may be to ensure that the House has before it the papers that are necessary for the passage of the motion that is in front of it.
That may not be a point of order, but it has certainly been a matter of practice during the 19 years that I have been a Member of the House. It is the responsibility of the Minister. I recall the former Member for Belper, now Lord George-Brown, going on for two hours before Ministers accepted that it was their responsibility and that the House had the right to reject any piece of legislation or order unless the relevant information was provided.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you would be willing to say that that is a precedent and that it is a responsibility that Ministers ought to discharge.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that there is a copy of the Act in the Library. I understand that earlier this evening the Government were preparing copies of amendments to the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill, which we shall be debating later. Could not the Minister or some of his officials go to the Library and copy the relevant pages of the Act? We could then adjourn for an hour and come back with the details that we require.

Mr. Michael Mates: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am neither a lawyer nor a parliamentary draftsman. It is with a genuine plea from the heart that I ask for your help.
The order states:
The Secretary of State in exercise of powers conferred on him by section 1(1) and 3 of the Redundancy Rebates Act 1977.
I have not seen that Act, but I have attempted personally to obtain it from the Vote Office and I have established that it is not available. But more important, and why it is vital, Mr. Speaker, that you should give us your help, is that Article 1 states:
This Order may be cited as the Redundancy Payments (Variation of Rebates) Order 1977 and shall come into operation at the end

of the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which it is made.
If the order is made tonight, it comes into operation within 14 days. Whether the Redundancy Rebates Act 1977 will be available tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, I know not and cannot discover. But surely it is a matter entirely for the Chair—not for the will, whims or desires of the Government to get their legislation through quickly—whether, if there is an error in the draft order, the House of Commons can do anything about it before the 14 days elapse.
It is pertinent to ask: what should we do if we discover that the powers conferred upon the Secretary of State are not reflected in the substance of the draft order or that the Secretary of State, no doubt accidentally and possibly with the best of intentions and good faith, has exceeded those powers? By that time Parliament will be in recess and we shall not be able to question the Minister or to complain that what he has done is improper—albeit accidentally—or, indeed, that this is a dictatorial piece of paper to enable the Minister to get done quickly what he wants to get done.
It is all very well to state that this is a matter for the Government, but I do not understand what the draft order involves. I do not understand what powers the Government are seeking to elucidate and hurry on into operation within the 14 days as a result of the order. Surely, if we do not know and have no means of knowing what is in the Act to which the order refers, it cannot be right for us to come to a decision upon it without the assistance of the substance upon which we are deciding.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are being put in an extremely difficult position. It is within the knowledge of the House that the Leader of the House was behind your Chair a few moments ago. I understand that he has also been observed moving up and down the "Aye" Lobby, no doubt restlessly awaiting the vote that the Minister of State wishes to press ahead with. That is not good enough. The Leader of the House can help us in this matter. Can you, Mr. Speaker, let it be known that you would welcome the appearance of the Leader of the House to help us in our present difficulties?

Mr. John Hannam: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House is in grave danger of being treated with contempt in this matter. There was a precedent to this situation on 14th June. During discussion of the Report stage of the Coal Industry Bill a similar situation arose. Papers were not available to the House concerning the Committee stage. The Leader of the House, in response to the wishes of Back Benchers, came quickly to the Dispatch Box and announced that the proceedings would be withdrawn and re-presented when the necessary papers were available.
We have now suffered from a series of similar misadventures in the course of this Session. This reflects very harshly upon the Government for their inefficiency in not providing the necessary papers. It is wrong for the House to be asked to approve this legislation without the necessary papers being available. We should require the Leader of the House to appear before us to answer these charges.

Mr. David Crouch: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The concern of the House has been expressed at the way in which it is being asked to proceed tonight in the last days of the Session. The situation is intolerable. What sort of sitting is this becoming? Is is becoming a secret session in which we do not know what the Government intend us to vote upon? What has happened to democracy in this House? Are we being inflicted with autocracy? In itself this issue might not be of great magnitude, but under the order I am asked to consider certain matters that the Secretary of State says he has done under powers conferred on him by certain sections of the Redundancy Rebates Act 1977. I do not know what those powers are. How can I make a decision on this small matter? Maybe there should be a device whereby we could ask the Leader of the House to come to the Box. Is it not within your power, Mr. Speaker, to command the attendance of the Leader of the House? We are defenceless in the face of an autocracy which is trying to rule the country.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened with care to the points of order which hon. Members on the Government side would have

been making had they been on the Opposition side and did not have the papers. It is the right of hon. Members of the House to receive papers that are relevant to the items before the House. I have been here long enough to have witnessed occasions when this has happened before and when my predecessors have expressed the opinion that the House was entitled to the papers. But Mr. Speaker has to put the business on the Order Paper.
Undoubtedly serious note will, I hope, be taken of the fact that the House is denied the papers that it is entitled to receive. I can say only that I shall make a further statement tomorrow.

Mr. Prior: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what you have said and as it is known that the Leader of the House is within a short distance of the Chamber, the Government should think about this matter again and withdraw the order. Why cannot the Leader of the House come down to the Chamber now? It is nothing short of disgraceful that he is not here. None of his hon. Friends has defended his not coming to the Chamber in view of what you have said, Mr. Speaker. 
Where is that great parliamentarian? Is it that he knows perfectly well the view that he would take if he were here? He is not doing his job. He is not giving the support to the Chair that it should be receiving. He is failing in his duty to the House of Commons. I am prepared to continue speaking so that the Leader of the House might be fetched by the Whip.
A considerable principle is involved which you, Mr. Speaker, have now fully supported. I should have thought that this was a matter which could be settled without the Leader of the House—should he not arrive—by the Minster of State now saying that the Government will withdraw the order.
We have heard not one defence from the Government Back Benches. We have heard not a word in support of the Government continuing with the order tonight. Labour Members know that an important principle is at stake which they might wish to use in future. This is a House of Commons matter and it should be treated as such.
It is not good enough for the Government to behave in this manner. Could


we please have a statement from the Minister of State that he will withdraw the order, in view of what Mr. Speaker has said, in view of what we are saying and in view of the fact that there has been no support from his own Benches for the view taken by the Government? May we please now have that statement?

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A moment ago, in the hearing of all of us, you gave a most considered ruling that the House was entitled to receive papers. I ask respectfully, Mr. Speaker, for a further ruling. If the House is entitled to receive papers—I emphasise the word "entitled"—who is the responsible authority to ensure that that entitlement is honoured and fulfilled? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that you were saying to the Government Front Bench, admittedly in the absence of the Leader of the House, that there was an obligation on the Government to provide the House with papers to which you have ruled that the House is entitled. In those circumstances, could you tell us who is the responsible authority for ensuring that the House receives that to which you have said it is entitled?
The second point on which I should like your ruling, Mr. Speaker, is this. No doubt, as is the consequence of your ruling, under the strict legal procedures the Government are entitled to disregard your ruling about our entitlement. However, is there not a special duty resting upon the House to ensure not only that the strict legalities are complied with but that the common rules of natural justice are complied with? Is it not a defiance of those common rules of natural justice that we should be denied a copy of the Redundancy Rebates Act 1977, from which Act alone the draft order is derived?
We are talking about a matter which in the fairly near future may very well affect right hon. and hon. Members who are at present on the Government side of the House. When discussing this matter, it is very relevant to reflect upon the rights of future Oppositions as well as the rights of the present Opposition.
The issue is wider than that. The issue is whether this House ought to debate an order the parent Act of which is not available to hon. Members and which could be of real consequence and effect for all our people. This is a matter of

very grave constitutional importance indeed. In the absence of the Leader of the House, the only person to whom we can look for protection is you, Mr. Speaker, and we know that we shall not look in vain.

Sir John Eden: In the light of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, on an occasion like this one has enormous sympathy for the Minister's position. Perhaps it might not be echoed in all quarters of the House at present, but I think I understand the position very well. In these circumstances, I hope that the Minister, recognising, as I am certain he does, the validity of the views which have been expressed by my colleagues and the force of the points that they have been making, would wish to intervene for a brief moment in order to make some observation.
I am quite certain that the Minister is unhappy about the position and that he would wish to retrieve it in some way. I am sure he recognises that, after the Government have put forward the case that they have, hon. Members are fully entitled to have the parent document to which to refer. I feel certain that the absence of that document is entirely due to an oversight and one that the Minister would not wish to have happened. But the fact is that it has happened, and in those circumstances he must take note of the fact, as do other hon. Members, that he himself has the opportunity to put this matter right.
I hope that the Minister will seek an early opportunity to comment on the situation which has arisen, in order to meet the wishes of the House to allay hon. Members' doubts and anxieties. In the light of what you have fairly stated, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Minister might seek an opportunity to make a brief statement in order to put this matter at rest.

Mr. Harold Walker: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bournemouth; West (Sir J. Eden) for speaking in the way that he has done. It is, of course, obvious that I am in great difficulty. But I am in great difficulty not only in respect of the problem posed to the House but in respect of the very issue itself.
I readily confess that when the matter was first drawn to the attention of the


House I was unaware that the Act was not in the Vote Office. I understand that this is because of printing difficulties with which in recent months and years the House has not been unfamiliar. Of course, I was guided by the form of your original remarks, Mr. Speaker, when this difficulty was first brought to the attention of the House and also by the brief guidance that I was able to seek from the Clerk of the House.
I am a little hesitant to debate the substance of the order because we have not been able to discuss it as I and, I believe, the House would like. But I am bound to say, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) intimated, that this matter was brought before the House as part of the Chancellor's package in July of last year and its urgency was pressed then. In fairness, I should point out that right hon. and hon. Members opposite have opposed each stage of the measure before the House, and this was an inevitable part of the delay that ensued.
We have had debates in the House about the importance of keeping public expenditure under control. Now, with every month that passes, we lose £1.35 million of public expenditure saving that would otherwise take place. If we do not pass the order tonight, it means that we shall have to reintroduce it in the next Session of Parliament and several months of public expenditure saving will have been lost.
I have attached great weight, Mr. Speaker, to the words that you have expressed to the House and also to the very strong feelings that have been expressed by Conservative Members. Clearly the House is entitled to take the view that it will not give approval to that order, but I feel that the right way to do that is in the Division Lobby. As I said earlier, in pursuing and persisting with this course it was my understanding that we were acting in no way contrary to the rules and precedents of the House. This is a matter for the House itself to resolve, and the right place to resolve it is in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not intolerable that the House should proceed in ignorance of the facts and that you should be treated so discourteously,

as I feel you are being treated, by being kept in ignorance of what is going on in this Chamber? I have good reason to believe that consultations are taking place behind your Chair. I think I am right in saying that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), has been privy to those consultations and he might therefore be able to help the House and you with regard to what is going on.
It is within the knowledge of all of us here that it is highly probable that the Leader of the House is involved in those consultations. It seems to me to be totally intolerable that not only do we not have the papers but we are given no information at all as to what is actually happening or what is going to happen. How long must we go on about this business before we are told?

Mr. George Cunningham: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to make this point with the very greatest respect to the Chair and to the Officers of the House.
The situation which has occurred tonight is far from unprecedented. I can remember occasions in the middle of 1974 when there were rather similar occurrences. The House had passed Acts or instruments which had been completed and, therefore, the texts were available somewhere. The House had decided them. The texts had gone to be printed. But, because of printing difficulties, they had not come back and were not avail. able to right hon. and hon. Members. I was told in the Public Bill Office that it did not see itself being responsible for maintaining unprinted—typed—copies of those texts during the intervening time before printed copies were available. I say with the utmost respect to you, Mr. Speaker, that it ought to do so.
In my view, in the period when printed copies are not available, it is the responsibility not of the Government but of the institutions of the House to ensure that the texts which have been completed and passed by the House are available to right hon. and hon. Members, whether in printed form or in some other form. Right hon. and hon. Members have been directing their criticism at the Government, and I am not loth to do that myself on occasions. But I acquit the


Government of any responsibility for this. I believe that the institutions of the House are responsible for ensuring that documents appear.

Mr. Prior: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. If, in fact, the responsibility is yours, we ask you to make a ruling very much along the lines that you intimated your feelings were a few minutes ago. If you maintain, as you have a perfect right to do, that it is not your responsibility, the matter comes back to the Government and their incompetence in putting an item on the Order Paper in the way they have done when the necessary papers are not available.
In either case, it seems to me that one or other will now have to make a decision to withdraw the order tonight and put it down for another day.

Mr. Speaker: I listened with great respect to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), and, of course, it may well be that in the future responsibility for seeing to these matters is transferred. But, as it is at present, I have allowed a long run of points of order on this matter, and, since there is nothing that I can do about it tonight, I now suggest that we go on with the business. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] There is nothing that I can do.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that we have reached a new departure. Although the whole House will have great sympathy with the Minister in his personal capacity, his short intervention recently must have dispelled a certain amount of that sympathy.
The hon. Gentleman claimed that it was because of printing disputes that the Act was not available. This doctrine seems to me to cause severe problems for the House in the future. I can imagine a situation where we may be debating a Finance Bill and, due to printing difficulties, copies of the Bill may not be available. Will the Government then invite us to pass tax laws, even though we do not know what they are proposed to be—to say nothing of our inability to amend them—because we have no papers before us?
The suggestion that Government supporters should be invited to go through the Division Lobby to approve this order although none of them knows what it does and none of them has seen the parent Act—and cannot see it even if he wishes to do so—smacks to me of the suggestion that the House should simply become a rubber stamp for what the Government may wish to do later when they come round to sorting out the difficulties in Her Majesty's Stationery Office. After all, whose responsibility is it that there are printing difficulties? It is well known to all hon. Members that in the Basement we have a blackleg printing press set up by the Government. Of all the people who would be suitable to operate it, surely those in the Department of Employment are the paramount example. The Minister could send the PPSs into the Basement and start manufacturing copies of the Act.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been very patient in allowing the argument to proceed, but the hon. Gentleman is not advancing a point of order now. He is making a speech, a very interesting one, but not one that is a matter for me.

Mr. Ridley: May I come to my point of order, Mr. Speaker? It is that the failure to produce the Act makes it impossible for the House to proceed and that the only honourable thing for the Government to do is to withdraw the order now. I should hate to have to move to adjourn but if the Minister is not prepared to withdraw the order I do not think that my right hon. and hon. Friends would wish to proceed with it or with any further business.
I know that Labour hon. Members want to take their buckets and spades tomorrow morning and get away to the seaside, and 12th August is not far away. But we on the Opposition Benches have been prepared to stay here to see the Government's business through, and we would have been prepared to see endless Bills with endless Lords amendments—there are 64 on the Housing Homeless Persons Bill. We are prepared to stay here tonight, tomorrow and tomorrow night—as long as is necessary. But the essential condition is that the matters put before us should be supported by the documents necessary for hon. Members to


understand what they are being asked to pass into law.
In the absence of that, my point of order is that the Government should withdraw the order and pack it up for tonight, because there is no more business to be done until they do.
I remember occasions when matters of this sort—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has many happy memories, but I must ask him now to keep to his point of order.

Mr. Ridley: I was just about to say, Mr. Speaker, that I remember when irregularities of this sort have happened before in the House, and on those occasions it has always proved to be the case that no further business could be done by the Government of the day, of whatever party, until the irregularities were put right or the business was withdrawn. Therefore, I call upon the Government to do the honourable thing. I am sure that my hon. Friends would be prepared to stay here on Friday, Saturday and Sunday—anything to get the Government's business through—though I do not know whether Liberal hon. Members would be prepared to stay through Friday, Saturday and Sunday or whether the Lib-Lab pact extends to giving up a weekend in the interests of Government business.
The House should not be asked to pass the order without the proper documentation for us to understand what it is all about.

Mr. Max Madden: Very few of the Conservative hon. Members working themselves up into a lather about the non-availability of papers are present with Labour hon. Members in the early hours of the morning when we deal with EEC business. If they were, they would know that it is not infrequent for crucial EEC papers to be unavailable, out of date or non-existent. But that has not been a cause for objection from many Conservative hon. Members when these matters have been discussed and the House has been called upon to approve those EEC papers. Therefore, we must see the spectacle on the Opposition Benches as another example of synthetic indignation and hypocrisy.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have

already told the House that it is not within your competence to deal with this matter since it is a matter for the Government to provide papers. You have said, in answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), that it is not at this stage a matter for the Officers of the House.
May I put to you that there is one power you possess which is unreservedly yours: to protect the House by suspending the sitting until papers are produced. I would ask you to exercise that power which is yours, unfettered. It would be acceptable in the interests of Parliament.

Mr. Clement Freud: May I move, Mr. Speaker, that this point of order, though unopposed, may be proceeded with until any hour?

Mr. Graham Page: Although that is a new aspect of a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I also have a new aspect of it. We have put our point of order forward on the basis that we have no papers before us and that the parent Act is not printed, but there is the further point that unless we see the parent Act we cannot tell whether it has come into operation and we cannot even tell whether it has had Royal Assent.
We may be being asked to make an order under a statute which does not exist or, at least, has not come into operation. We cannot tell unless we have the document in front of us.

Mr. Robert Adley: I normally sit quietly and do not jump to my feet unnecessarily, Mr. Speaker, but can you give a ruling since we frequently rely on precedent? Is this to be accepted in future as a precedent? If the Government have difficulty in the printing of documents, is it to be maintained that that makes no difference and the House should proceed with the business? Is this to be accepted as a precedent for the House?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that we are not making precedents tonight. I am clear that I have allowed a full discussion on these points of order. I have explained that I believe that the House is entitled to have the papers, and we have heard the Minister. I now call Mr. Hayhoe.

Mr. Hayhoe: Many times we on this side have called for the presence of the
Leader of the House. Is it not intolerable and unprecedented that he should be skulking around behind your Chair, Mr. Speaker, and is not prepared to show his face in the Chamber? He used to think of himself as a parliamentarian, but he has not got the guts to come here and to say, as Leader of the House, what is to be done.
It is monstrously disgraceful behaviour by the Leader of the House. Is it not right, Mr. Speaker, that you should suspend the session—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sitting."]—suspend the sitting to give him time to work up the courage to come here and face the House, and to do the proper thing by withdrawing the order? The Ministers in charge of the legislation do not appear to have the courage to withdraw it. Let the Leader of the House come here and do the decent thing.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: It is essential that something should be done to protect you, Mr. Speaker, from what is going on. Surely the Leader of the House is required to explain the position. It cannot be accepted that simply because, with the present Leader of the House, this sort of thing has happened before, it may continue. It has happened far too often in the past. The House cannot—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh like drains—and drains they are—but it is not very clever that the House must put up with a situation in which business is constantly brought before it when the requisite papers are not available to hon. Members. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will be able to use your influence to ensure that the Leader of the House tells us what he proposes to do about the situation in which he has placed us.

Mr. David Hunt: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. While we are waiting for the Leader of the House, may I bring a serious matter to your attention?
The House has been misled. I was one of those who went to the Vote Office for a copy of the Act. I was told that a copy was not available. When the matter was raised in the House, it was stated quite clearly from the Government Benches that all was well because there was a copy in

the Library. The points of order have been going on for some time, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you do not mind, but I slipped out of the Chamber a few moments ago and went to the Library to find the Act. I was there for some time, but after going through all the boxes and searching through every possible nook and cranny I came to the conclusion that a copy of the Act was not available in the Library. Perhaps a copy was available at some stage.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said that it is extremely important that we see the Act so that we may judge whether the Secretary of State is exceeding his powers and whether what he has done is ultra vires. For the Act to disappear from the House after that important point was made casts an aura of suspicion over and highlights a very serious situation. The House is entitled to an explanation from the Leader of the House.

Mr. Emery: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer you to page 576 of "Erskine May", which deals with the question of parliamentary control of delegated legislation? I am loth to speak again, particularly as you have appealed so reasonably to us to proceed, but we have been on points of order for about an hour and 15 minutes and it is remarkable that my hon. Friends have so evenly kept their tempers over this difficult matter.
It is stated at the bottom of page 576 of "Erskine May":
The conditions of the making of statutory instruments and the degree of parliamentary control over them will depend in each case upon the particular statute which authorises them …".
If one refers back to page 573—I stress that this is the nineteenth edition—the chapter on delegated legislation begins by making it quite clear that over the last half century or more Parliament has passed an increasing volume of legislation expanding the activities of the Government into a great number of fields, often involving provisions of considerable complexity. It is for that reason that "Erskine May" rightly argues that before parliamentary control can be properly exercised the statute must be considered in its entirety, so that hon. Members can know whether the delegated legislation is accurate.
This point is carried on further at the top of page 577, where it says:
Under one type of procedure the resultant instrument has no effect.
Maybe, as we have no Act, this is a case where the delegated legislation would have no effect. How can I possibly know, if the Act is not before the House? Therefore, I would suggest that the sitting should be suspended for 15 minutes. Within that time the Minister could take the Act to a photo-copying machine and we could have 20 copies of it brought to the House—[AN HON. MEMBER: "We want 634 copies."] I ask my hon. Friends not to be too greedy. Surely that would get us out of this parlous situation, which is immensely embarrassing to the Minister and does the House of Commons no credit.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman(Lancaster) rose—

Hon. Members: Give her a chance, George.

Mr. Speaker: I shall—in a minute. I have studied the situation. If hon. Members go on with points of order to the end of the debate, I still cannot add anything to what I have already said.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: It will be within the recollection of the House that the Minister informed us earlier in the proceedings that there was a copy of the Act in the Library. That being the case, would he care to point out where this apparently fictitious Act is reposing, in view of the extensive search that was made by my hon. Friends with total lack of success?

Mr. Prior: As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) pointed out, this has been a good-humoured points-of-order debate, but it is not becoming so good humoured as we recognise that this is a device by the Government to allow the debate to go on for an hour and a half and for the guillotine to fall. That seems to be a further abuse of the situation into which the House is drifting tonight.
One of the ways of getting out of our troubles would be to have an adjournment of 15 minutes so that the Leader of the House could come here and report from the Dispatch Box on the Government's attitude towards this measure. It would be intolerable not only if we did

not have the necessary Act to enable us to discuss the order but if the order were to go through on the basis of points of order for an hour and a half without any proper consideration of the order itself.
I see that the Leader of the House has now joined us. A good deal of the lost hour and a half might have been avoided if the right hon. Gentleman had come into the House and done his duty. His attitude tonight reflects no credit at all on the office he holds.

1.35 a.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I understand that there has been some difficulty over the order. Following representations made to me, I have made some inquiries about the way this situation can best be dealt with. Having made those inquiries, I feel that the best course the House can adopt is that we should adjourn this debate. That is how I propose that the House should deal with the matter.
I take the fullest responsibility for what has occurred. Part of the question I had to consider was the financial consequences that might follow if the order were not to be carried through the House. That matter must be taken into account. We must also take into account the timetable for the convenience of the House. Furthermore, we must also consider our relations with the other place and what has to be arranged with their Lordships, because the matter has to be dealt with in the other place as well as in this House.
I was not present to hear what was said in the House on this matter, but it has been reported to me. Naturally, when the House makes representations of this character it is my duty as Leader of the House to take account of what has been said and to see how best it can be resolved.
Therefore, I now ask the House to adjourn this debate, and I hope that before the end of the week the matter can be brought back to the House again in a proper form, with the Act printed as the House would wish. I hope that that can be the case, although I hope that the House would also take into account the fact that I have to examine the consequences that may follow.
I hope that the House will agree to adjourn this matter so that we may be able to look into it. I hope that we can bring the matter back afresh tomorrow or on Friday, and in such a manner that we can arrange it with the other place so that it can be carried through and so that there are no unfortunate repercussions on the financial affairs of the country.
We also wish to conform to the proper requirements upon which the House insists in such matters. I ask the House to allow the matter to be adjourned now. I shall seek to bring the matter back to the House and I hope that we shall be able to transact this business before we depart for the recess. However, there are many ramifactions that we must look at meanwhile.
I hope the House will accept that I did not speak earlier not because I did not wish to come before the House but because I wished to examine the consequences of the situation which had arisen.

Mr. Graham Page: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for what he has said. May I clear up one point? According to Standing Orders, orders of this kind are allowed an hour and a half of debate. It might be said that we have now used up most of that time. Will the Leader of the House somehow arrange for that full amount of time to be granted when he brings the order back?

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to have been challenged on such a comparatively easy matter. I hope that the large numbers of hon. Members who have turned up tonight will be here for the full length of the debate on this matter on Friday—if that is when we shall bring it back to the House. I promise that I shall be here, and I shall be glad to welcome all those hon. Members who are now celebrating this great parliamentary

victory. I promise that we shall try to carry out this matter in accordance with the highest traditions of the House and in a manner that will best carry out the financial responsibilities of the House.
On that basis, I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The time that has had to be spent on this matter is well understood by hon. Members on this side. The debate has been conducted with good humour except for the last comment made by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity of withdrawing his foul accusations against the Leader of the House.

Mr. Prior: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for coming to the House and asking that the order should be withdrawn. I am certain that that was a right decision. I said a few moments ago that I did not think that the Leader of the House had acted in the best interests of his office. Having listened to the right hon. Gentleman, I feel inclined to withdraw that, but I must remind myself that the first consideration of the Leader of the House must be not the convenience of the Government's timetable but the principle that lies behind the fact that papers were not available to the House. Now that the right hon. Gentleman has said what he has, I am delighted, but he could have done it at least an hour and a quarter earlier.

Question, That the debate be now adjourned, put and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed this day.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since I raised my point of order some considerable time ago, may I apologise to the House that the matter has kept it so long and may I sincerely thank you for the way you have ruled.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

1.44 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I move the Second Reading extremely briefly. This is a purely consolidation Bill. It consolidates certain provisions relating the National Health Service—namely, the National Health Service Acts 1946 to 1976, the Public Health Laboratory Act 1936—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Minister wait for a minute? I ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber as quietly and quickly as possible if they are going? Mr. Davidson.

Mr. Davidson: I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, to grab an unusually large audience for a consolidation Bill, which is why I ploughed on.
The Bill consolidates many National Health Service Acts. I have mentioned the 1946 to 1976 Acts. It also consolidates the Public Health Laboratory Services Act 1960, the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act 1964 and certain provisions of the Public Health Act 1936. It has been through the Joint Consolidation Committee. It reflects the existing law, and I think that I need say no more about it in commending it to the House.

1.46 a.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: The House will be glad to know that this matter is entirely uncontroversial. This is another major consolidation Bill by the Joint Consolidation Committee and it was produced as recently as last week. It looks a formidable document—there are 130 clauses and 16 schedules—but it is purely consolidation. It is the first consolidation of legislation affecting the National Health Service, which was established by the National Health Service Act 1946.
The consolidation draws its composition from the Acts known collectively as the National Health Service Acts 1946 to 1976. There was a major reorganisation of the National Health Service in

1973. It would be out of order to say whether we were wise in some of the changes made then, but the innovations of the 1973 Act have been brought fully into the Bill. I am sure that the Bill will be of benefit to all those concerned with the administration of the National Health Service in bringing the whole legal framework into one statute.
The House owes a considerable debt to Mr. Robson, the Senior Assistant Parliamentary Counsel, who advised and helped the Joint Committee and was responsible for the drafting of the Bill. He has done an excellent job.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second tune

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Snape.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Would it be for the convenience of the House if I put the clauses en bloc?

Clauses 1 to 130 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Would it be convenient if I put Schedules 1 to 14 en bloc?

Schedules 1 to 14 agreed to.

Schedule 15

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Manuscript amendment made: in page 126, line 14, at end insert:
'and for the words" subsection (3) of that section "substitute" paragraph 2 of that Schedule"'.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]

Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 16 agreed to.

Bill reported, with an amendment; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading) and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

POST OFFICE BILL

Lords amendment considered.

Clause 1

MEMBERSHIP OF THE POST OFFICE

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1. line 17, at end insert—
(4) This Act shall come into force at the expiration of the period of six months beginning with the day on which it is passed.

1.52 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
First we should consider the practical effect of the amendment. The Government intend to appoint the members of the new board as soon as possible after the arrangements have been ratified by the unions and they have provided the Secretary of State with appropriate nominations. This amendment would simply delay the procedure. If the experiment is to run for the two-year period envisaged—and this is necessary if the new board is to have reasonable time to test the working of the experiment—the effect of the amendment will be simply to shorten the period for review. The allowance of reasonable time for review, of course, originated in an amendment made in this House when hon. Members were concerned to ensure that the experiment would be subject to full and thorough examination before its future was decided upon. This amendment would cut into the time allotted for the review and, if only for this reason, I would argue that it should be reconsidered by another place.
Since the Bill left this House the Carter Report has been published, and hon. Members may like to look at what the Carter Report has to say about the experiment.
The House is of course aware that the Post Office management and unions were considering an experiment in industrial democracy before the Carter Committee was even appointed by the Government. From an early stage it was clear that the prospects of management and unions reaching agreed proposals were excellent, and these were presented to the Government in February of this year. The

Government saw the degree of commitment which lay behind these proposals. We were convinced that it was a worthwhile experiment and we felt that we could not risk losing momentum by delaying its start. If we had waited for the Carter Report, there could of course have been no Bill this Session. We decided that the opportunity for this early experiment in industrial democracy in a major nationalised industry was not to be missed and that we should therefore proceed with the Bill.
Now that the Carter Report is available, we are aware of its views on industrial democracy in the Post Office. The Committee takes the view that industrial democracy should not only be a matter of employee seats on the board but should consist of a democratic structure throughout the organisation, starting at the level of the head post office or telephone area. The Government fully accept that this experiment must not be restricted to the board-level arrangements. As I said at the first union-management-Government tripartite meeting last July,
Representation on the Board does not of itself create industrial democracy—it must be much wider and extend to all levels of enterprise".
The joint study group within the Post Office has been discussing this for some time and its report, available in the Library of the House—and this is available—drew attention to the fact that, while priority was given to board-level proposals requiring legislation, consideration was also being given to the scope for extending industrial democracy at regional and local levels.
Since it presented its report, the joint study group has devoted much more attention to the arrangements for industrial democracy below board level. I understand that agreement has now been reached on all but the final details of arrangements to operate at local level—that is, the work unit controlled overall by a head postmaster or general manager. Here joint area policy committees will be established to enable staff to participate in the formative stage of decision-making on policy and planning matters of local concern. This is, of course, exactly what the Carter Committee has recommended.
Consideration of arrangements for industrial democracy at regional level is


also well advanced, and I understand that management and unions hope soon to finalise and agree the participation structure covering all levels of the Post Office.
I am sure that the House will agree that the arrangements for the experiment coincide on many points with the sort of structure which the Carter Committee has in mind. I should add that the arrangements devised by the Post Office management and unions have a distinct and overwhelming advantage. They are what those most closely concerned believe is the appropriate structure for their industry. Because of this, they have the best possible chance of success. For these reasons, the Government are convinced that the experiment should go ahead as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huck-field), said in Committee that there should be an opportunity for
the fullest consideration by Parliament of what has been achieved".—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 21st June 1977; c. 30.]
That is the Government's view, and we would not like to see the period for review shortened, as it would be by this unnecessary amendment.

Mr. Norman Lamont: I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes.
When their Lordships carried their amendment, they made it clear that their purpose was to afford the House the chance to have a further discussion in case other developments gave us reason to have second thoughts. They had in mind the Carter Report, and I want to refer specifically to what it said about worker-directors.
There is another matter about which I should like to ask the Minister. This matter has been brought to my attention since the previous debates. I refer to the position of some of the smaller unions in the Post Office, particularly the Society of Civil and Public Servants. It is not entirely happy with the scheme as it has so far been worked out. As the Minister knows, the Society is one of eight members of COPOU. Indeed, it is one of the six constituent members. It is not an associate member. Given that the Union of Post Office Workers and the Post Office Engineering Union are to have four out of the seven seats between them, that

leaves three seats for the other four unions. They are understandably fearful that there will be not Corporation-wide elections but elections within particular unions which have been allocated seats on the board.
One could make a case for saying that the Society of Civil and Public Servants is an important union. It is represented in all four branches of the Corporation. It is particularly strong on the telecommunications side, but, that being capital-intensive, it is in a rather weak position in having the bulk of its membership there. The society is worried that, once the division of board representatives has been decided, it will never get a representative on the board. Will the Minister of State comment on that matter?
Another matter which arose in the debates in the other place concerned the procedures for electing the members. The question posed was whether there would be secret ballots for the election of directors. I know that the question of secret ballots in trade unions is a controversial subject—we know the arguments on both sides—but when dealing with the election of representatives to the boards of publicly-owned companies I think that there is something to be said for secret ballots.
When this point was raised in the House of Lords, Lord Winterbottom referred to "some" unions using their own established procedures that they already had for electing union officials. I do not know whether the word "some" was significant, but it was different from the word used by the Secretary of State on Second Reading. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that all unions would use their existing procedures for the election of officials. I wonder whether the Minister of State will clarify that point for us.
2.0 a.m.
When the Bill was introduced, we wished it well as an experiment. I see no reason not to wish it well again. There is only one point that concerns a matter of disagreement. We expressed some caution in that we doubted the wisdom of introducing the scheme before the Carter Committee had reported. The fact that the report is now presented means that the Government are in a bit of a muddle, especially bearing in mind what is in the report.
The report makes it clear that the committee was made aware of the Government's proposals only at a very late stage when the report was actually going to the printers. It makes clear that if the committee had been consulted it would have urged the Government to be more cautious. It emphasises that in its view it would be much better to develop participation at a local level than at a regional level and then afterwards to work upwards. The Minister said that this matter was under consideration before the Carter Committee was set up. In that case, why was the Carter Committee allowed to consider the question at all? There is a great danger now that it will be more difficult to separate the two businesses as recommended in the report.
The report specifically says that the Post Office Corporation should start now making preparations for splitting the Corporation. It also proposes boards totally different in scope and kind from those which exist now and from those proposed in the legislation. The key point, however, is that the Carter Committee puts forward specific proposals even for the interim. The committee recognises that there has to be a long period of discussion, that legislation will be complicated and that it will take time to get through the House.
For the interim, the report proposes that while consideration is taking place there should be an independent part-time chairman and two chairmen-designate for the two constituent parts, as it sees them, of the Corporation. I should like to hear from the Minister whether the Government are rejecting what the Carter Committee has recommended as interim proposals in advance of legislation. That is our only reservation about the legislation.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Since the House last discussed the Bill, the Carter Report has been published. Before publication and during earlier discussion of the Bill, we on these Benches sought assurances from the Government that the conduct of this valuable experiment for a couple of years would in no way inhibit official reaction to the Carter recommendations, which are very weighty and would certainly not delay

the preparation which the Government might have in mind. I should like to hear from the Minister that this assurance still holds now that the Government are fully aware of the Carter Report.
I turn to the appointment of directors. Is there anything more that the Minister can say about the method of appointment of consumer directors? Those of us in the House who played some part in proposing that the board should be enlarged to admit people appointed for their experience of consumer affairs have been accused in some quarters simply of adding to the Government's range of patronage. That was no part of our purpose. We on this Bench have always hoped that the appointments would be the subject of public advertising so that the Government would have the widest possible range of consumer experts from which to choose.
I hope for some assurance that these two appointments to the board are not simply to be used for well-known purposes of extending Government patronage.

Mr. Richard Page: One of the advantages of speaking at this time is that many of the arguments have been made. I do not intend to canter over them again.
One of my original concerns was that we were obviously starting at the top and working through to the bottom. It reminded me of someone building a house by starting at the roof and filling in the foundations later.
I was reassured by the Secretary of State when he said:
It is right that we should pay tribute to all those in the Post Office, management and workers' representatives alike, who have taken part in formulating the proposals.
He went on to say:
The proposals agreed between the Post Office and the unions have been submitted and have been accepted as being an experiment suitable to the particular circumstances of the Post Office."—[Official Report, 16th May 1977; Vol. 932, c. 108-111.]
That gave the impression that all was sweetness and light. Since then, however, we have had the Carter Report. The amendment gives us the opportunity to consider that report. It gives us and the Post Office a little time so that adjustments might be made before the Bill passes from the word into the flesh. As


has been said, there is a degree of concern and friction about the selection and nomination of new members. The extra time that we have will allow management and unions to evolve their traditional stances.
I hope that there will be a softening of the line which suggests that union nominees should not defend board decisions. I should like management and unions to work in harmony and produce a united report, rather than that the unions should remain silent on certain issues. I should prefer to see an evolution towards industrial democracy rather than the taking of a position which might not be 100 per cent. correct and then working backwards.
I should be assured if the Minister could say that the proposals for industrial democracy are working through the line. The Post Office Review Committee makes the same point in chapter 7, paragraph 10, under the heading:
The development of true industrial democracy".
I do not know what makes it think that that is the Holy Grail, but the report says that industrial democracy at the top level could mean even more autocracy at the work place rather than less. This will inhibit local initiative, and we do not want that. We want decision-making that goes not only down but up. Unions and management have a long tradition of decision-making at national level.
Chapter 9(1) of the report expresses misgivings about the centralised style of management in the Post Office with its parallel tendency towards a concentration of union activity at the national level. If the Bill is simply slapped into operation, it could enhance that tendency. A little time, afforded possibly by the amendment, would ensure a true flow of ideas from the board to the shop floor and, more vitally, back up again.
The Minister mentioned that steps are being taken on the regional boards. The Carter Report states that steps are to be taken to ensure that worker participation will be introduced here, on similar lines to that for the board, as a first step before the top board. I think that the regional boards should go in for this first.
Lastly, I hope that when the new board is operating it will continue to appreciate

its monopoly position and the resultant dependence of telecommunications equipment manufacturers on the Post Office ordering procedure. As such, I hope that it will give extra help and a chance to change over on the installation of electronic switching gear, such as TX2 and TX4, by spending some of the very large profit from this investment. As we are aware, one makes a profit to make investment to plough back. I hope that the boards will make that decision when the time comes.
I have strayed slightly from the straight and narrow, but I now come straight back again and conclude by saying that, amendment or not, I wish the experiment, possibly topsy-turvy as it is, every success. Who knows? Out of it might emerge a united single Post office union.

Mr. Michael Marshall: We have had a number of useful contributions, but I cannot help but worry somewhat about the way in which the incidence of Carter and this experiment in industrial democracy have not meshed in perhaps as happily as we might have hoped. It is fair to say that the Minister himself bears special responsibility, because he has chaired the meetings and the consultations that have taken place between the UPW and the Post Office management. We recognise the hard work that has gone into all that, but because he himself has been involved in those consultations he must also recognise that it is singularly unfortunate that we now have Carter bringing forward what the hon. Member said was coincidence at many points. We shall therefore look to him to see how far these two elements can be reconciled. It is still unfortunate that some of them, perhaps, may be missed because of the timing getting a little out of kilter.
The Minister implied in his speech that if we carried the amendment it would foreshorten the experiment by six months. Surely the answer to that, if the Minister feels strongly about it, is to bring forward an amendment to extend the experiment by six months. The time that we are allowed to try to bring together the two elements is important. I say that also because we have now had the announcement of the move of the Post Office into a profitable period, which we welcome.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: Does my hon. Friend agree that the use of the word "profitable" in connection with the Post Office might be somewhat misleading? Does he not accept that profit, to be really meaningful, is an adequate return on capital employed, and that in that context the Post Office is not very profitable?

Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend has touched on a very important theme, to which we would all do well to address our minds. Time and again we hear bandied about talk of high levels of profit. Return on capital should be the yardstick. I am glad to note that the Minister of State agrees about that. In these difficult days, we are all aware that a really meaningful criterion of that kind ought to be used more frequently.
However, the point I was making was that as the Post Office is moving into a profitable period, albeit not with as successful a return on capital as we might wish, we have a chance for reappraisal in various directions without some of the immediate short-term pressures on the composition of the board which would necessarily follow from a period of deficit operation. If one thinks for a moment about what Carter has had to say on the question of telecommunications and postal services, one can appreciate that the question of whether the board will now be suitable for the Post Office Corporation with the two services split up is very important. That is why the time lag suggested in the amendment would be very valuable.
I hope that the Minister will give us some assurances about the way in which he sees the Government's reaction and the Post Office's reaction to Carter working through into this experiment. We wish the experiment well, but I regret that we have got it out of kilter here.
2.15 a.m.
That, regretfully, reflects how time and time again we seem somehow not to have sufficient accountability between the nationalised corporations and this House. Although the Minister was aware of what was going on in the consultations, many of us were not aware of this until we were on the verge of being presented with a fait accompli in trying to make the best approach.
In those circumstances, it is the Minister who will have to make the best approach and we shall continue to ask him searching questions in the work that lies ahead.

Mr. Sainsbury: In recommending that we disagree with the Lords amendment, the Minister of State used the phrase that the arrangements were approved by those most closely concerned. I imagine that he had in mind the Post Office management and unions, subject to the reservations that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) has already pointed out about the unions involved. I put it to the Minister that they are not those most closely concerned, or exclusively concerned, because any arrangement which does not very much involve the consumer, who has suffered a great deal, is very inadequate.
Of course, the Liberals have referred to consumer directors, but these directors are a very small minority on the board. They can be out-voted on any issue upon which the management and the unions of this statutory monopoly choose to outvote the consumer interest.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, in addition to the two directors appointed specifically for their expertise in consumer affairs, all the other members of the board will, by definition, be consumers of Post Office services as well?

Mr. Sainsbury: I would have thought that the use made of the Post Office services by the union and management directors would take up only a very small proportion of the salary and remuneration that they receive for holding that office.
I put it to the Minister that whether this operation be divided into two, as I hope it shortly will be, or whether it remains as inefficiently as one as it is now. this operation has to be run as efficiently as possible. If it is not run as efficiently as possible, it is the consumer who will suffer. I should like to hear what the Minister thinks will ensure that in the proposals which he is commending to the House there is no ganging up by unions and management—protected by a statutory monopoly from the competition that ensues in the private sector—against the consumer interest.
Those of us who are familiar with the effects of competition—[Interruption.] Some Labour Members are prone to pronounce upon this issue from a sedentary position, much more often from a sedentary position than on their feet. I shall be happy to give way. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to intervene, or do they wish to interrupt as usual from a sedentary position and show their usual lack of knowledge about what competition really does for the benefit of the consumer? I take it that hon. Gentlemen are admitting their lack of knowledge on this subject.
It is the consumer about whom we should be concerned. I put it to the Minister of State that the consumer is at present profoundly dissatisfied with the efficiency of the operation of the Post Office in his interests. In putting on to the Post Office Board nominee directors of the unions, what is it that will ensure the efficiency which in many cases will mean a lower utilisation of and need for manpower? I hope that this will be pursued as carefully and diligently as it should be.
These consumer directors—whom I welcome, as does the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright)—are powerless against the votes of the others. What is it that will ensure that the operation is being run efficiently, and what further contribution to efficiency is likely to be made by installing on a board people who will have a built-in interest in obstructing any reduction in manpower designed to promote efficiency? That is what the consumer wants to know, and I shall be interested to know how the Minister thinks that this proposal will serve the consumer interest in the light of the interesting report that we have had so recently from the Carter Committee.

Mr. Kaufman: l am sorry that we do not have the benefit of the presence here of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg). He would have pointed out to the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) that we have the Post Office Users National Council, which looks after the consumer interest of the Post Office, and that Lord Peddie, the Chairman of the POUNC, not only has written to me after consultations with me commending this experiment but, in the discussions in the House of Lords last Thursday, spoke in very strong terms in favour of the experi-

ment proceeding and against this amendment being inserted in the Bill. The hon. Member for Hampstead, since he is a member of the POUNC, would have explained to the hon. Member for Hove that Lord Peddie was speaking for the council.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) pointed out that not only will the five independents be users, as well as the two with specific user experience, for whose presence the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can accept a great deal of the responsibility, but the other members of the board will have that too.

Mr. Sainsbury: Mr. Sainsbury rose—

Mr. Kaufman: No. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. If he had read the Second Reading debate, he would have known that this had been covered. It is a little late in the day, when the Bill has been through both Houses and when these matters have been discussed privately and publicly, to say nothing of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and his colleagues raising them in Committee, for the hon. Member for Hove suddenly to appear on a Lords amendment and take an interest in the experiment in a contentious way when his hon. Friends, though making points of substance, were able to preserve the good will towards this experiment that the House had shown.

Mr. Sainsbury: I do not know why the Minister assumes that an hon. Member who has not spoken before on these matters is for some reason debarred from intervening when we have before us a Lords amendment on an entirely novel issue, having had the benefit of a very substantial analysis of the position from the Carter Committee. That puts the matter on an altogether different footing.
Since the Minister is extolling the power of the Post Office Users National Council—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) has already made one speech. The Minister is expecting an intervention.

Mr. Sainsbury: I make my intervention because, in reply to my arguments earlier, the Minister referred specifically


to the existence of the POUNC to deal with the interest of the consumer. Since he is so impressed by the power of that council, can he say what its executive power is and how much influence it has had on matters such as Sunday collections?

Mr. Kaufman: I recall those ghastly days on the Rent Bill in 1974, and should have remembered never to give way to the mumbo-jumbo of the hon Member for Hove.

Mr. Sainsbury: Answer my question.

Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Colne Valley for his reference to the basis upon which the profits of the Post Office should be assessed. I am a great champion of the profitability of the Post Office. I am delighted about the profits announced today. But I agree with the hon. Gentleman that those profits, though admirable, and creditable as they are to the Post Office, must be very much higher if they are to reflect the necessary return on capital. I know that workers in the Post Office who have contributed to those profits will agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for setting those profits in perspective.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I think that this is common ground between us, but does the Minister recognise that at the same time it behoves the Post Office to think again about some of the services that it provides? It has caused a good deal of ill will in jacking up the profit. We must see each side of the equation, even though we share the same objective.

Mr. Kaufman: I shall not expand on that, but if the hon. Gentleman was obliquely referring to Sunday collections I must tell him that the profit on the postal services was, I think, 0·8 per cent. of turnover, and if one takes the £9 million cost of the Sunday service away from the £25 million there is not much left. The hon. Gentleman and I are clearly agreed in principle on this matter, so we need not go on debating it.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames spoke of the concern of the Society of Civil and Public Servants about its representation on the board. He sug-

gested that a solution to this admittedly difficult problem would have been Corporation-wide elections.

Mr. Norman Lamont: indicated dissent.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman dissents and accept that members of the two major unions would inevitably have swamped the elections for the seven seats. That is why the present arrangement is more acceptable. But the society has seen me about the matter and has also discussed it with Liberal Members. I think that the best answer I can give is to quote from a letter I sent in May to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who had raised the point with me.
I said:
It is certainly my understanding that the Council of Post Office Unions, in accordance with their assurance to the Post Office that all Post Office staff will be involved in the experiment, will do all they can to arrive at a situation in which the Society and its members will be able to participate fully in the process of electing worker-directors. I have placed myself at the disposal of either side if they believe that I can assist in achieving this. I had this morning a meeting with representatives of the Society at which I offered my good offices on this matter. … I know that you accept that the experiment is based on agreement by the participants and must not be imposed by the Government. I could not force through a solution which they did not find satisfactory and could not compel the Society to participiate if they did not wish to do so, however acceptable arrangements for participation by their members might seem to you or me. Nevertheless, I am confident that a solution can be found and assure you I will do all I can to help achieve one.
Therefore, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is very much in my mind. It must be one that the responsible unions resolve among themselves rather than by Government intervention, but I have made it clear that if I can assist I shall do so. I very much hope that a satisfactory solution will be found to what is admittedly a difficult problem. It is one of the problems that such an experiment will have to solve for other industries that may embark on similar ventures. The hon. Gentleman will accept that, even with these difficulties, we are fortunate in that we are dealing with a group of unions that are highly responsible and have highly democratic procedures.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about methods of election. The Post Office Engineering Union has already


made its selection, at its recent conference, through its delegate procedures. The selection was done by the normal method of voting by delegates from branches. The Union of Post Office Workers, the largest of the unions, with over 200,000 members, intends to make its selection by a postal ballot of all members after branches have been invited to nominate candidates. The smaller unions have not yet considered the matter in conference. They intend to hold special conferences in the autumn and have not yet decided how their nominees will be chosen.
2.30 a.m.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley asked me for an assurance that the fact that the experiment will now proceed will not prejudice consideration of the Carter Report. I give that assurance. It will not, and I come, indeed, to the question of how we deal with Carter. It has been announced that the Government are asking for observations from the public and will also consult interested bodies up to the end of November. After that, we shall consider those representations and consultations and will then issue a White Paper some time next spring.
Clearly, that will not prejudice proceeding with the experiment. I assure hon. Members that we have not taken up a position on Carter at this point. We have an open mind about the proposals and we want to consider them carefully. The experiment will not prejudice our consideration of the Carter proposals, because by the time any possible legislation comes, the experiment will be over.
The hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) asked if I thought that the experiment would be, not foreshortened, but extended in some way. I deliberately accepted a proposal that we should insert an amendment to limit it, so as to make sure that it did not go on beyond two years. To extend it would be to reverse what the Conservative and Liberal Parties asked for. I hope that the hon. Member will not press the point.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley raised again, as he did in Standing Committee, the appointment of consumers. I have looked carefully at the question of advertising to do this. Although I have no wish to dismiss it, and I said in Standing Committee that there would be

merit in it, I have come to the conclusion that advertising would not be the appropriate procedure. I shall explain why. I asked for a paper to be prepared on the possibilty of advertising. I got that far. The problem was looking at the result. In another matter in which we advertised there has been a response of 1,500 replies, and with an organisation like the Post Office, on which we are all experts, we might have got many thousands of replies. If we were to do that, considering the curriculum vitae and so on of applicants would have taken many months in order to do them justice. It would have risked postponing the experiment a great deal. I should, however, like to consider areas in which we can seek a much wider possibility of consideration so that it is not what some people might call "the same old gang" who are considered.
That is not at all the way we wish to approach this. I have reluctantly decided that advertising is not appropriate, but I shall consider whether other proposals could be considered to draw more widely when appointing these people. We have a little time, so that MPs or any other interested person who would like to make proposals can do so in good faith, just as I did when considering that possibility, even though I came reluctantly to the conclusion that it was not possible.
I would say to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Page) that I have always thought—and I thought at the start of consideration of these matters a year ago—that membership of a board of itself would not be industrial democracy. Just as in the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act we inserted a duty for a strong organic forum, we want it also in the Post Office.
The reason why we are only discussing the board is that we need an Act for the board whereas we do not need an Act for the rest of it. That being so, I can assure the House that we shall go ahead on that basis. I hope that this will be approved and that the House will accept the principle.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment to the Bill: Mr. Kaufman, Mr. Les Huckfield, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Jim Lester and


Mr. Frank R. White; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Kaufman.

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords amendment reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Motion made,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their Fifth Report, on Computer-based Indexing for the Library.—[Mr. Snape.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. James Dempsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? I understand and sympathise with the reasons for objection being taken to the motion, but this substantial project for the Library will take some time to introduce and will involve a lot of planning and preparation. I am sure that most of us thought that the most suitable time to do it was during the recess. If hon. Members continue to object, that will not be possible. Is there any way, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. It is not apparent that the hon. Gentleman is raising a matter for me.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. I objected to this business yesterday and today. I understand that the Fifth Report—I do not object to it, but I object to its being taken "on the nod"—has been avail. able to the House for three or four weeks. It was put on the Order Paper last night, I understand, but, unfortunately, the business motion did not make it exempted business, although a large number of other items, some of them short, were exempted. The same has happened today.
I understand that representations were made through the usual channels—and unusual channels—that the business should be exempted, but it is not exempted. Is there anything in the rules of the House to exempt it so that it might be discussed for 10 or 15 minutes, which

I think is all that the House would need to spend on it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Nothing in what the hon. Gentleman said is a matter for the Chair.

HOUSING (HOMELESS PERSONS) BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.

2.39 a.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): I have to acquaint the House that a message has been brought from the Lords by one of their Clerks, as follows:
The Lords have agreed to the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill with amendments to which they desire the consideration of this House.
As Mr. Speaker indicated earlier, copies of the amendments are available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have informed the House that copies of the amendments are available in the Vote Office. There are 57 amendments, 11 pages of them. To indicate the scope of the changes they introduce to the Bill, I must point out that the first 30 lines on page 4, 31 lines on page 5, and 33 lines on page 6 are deleted. These amendments were available in the Vote Office only at 12.05 a.m.—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member will have an opportunity to debate this matter in a moment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Lords amendments be now considered.—[Mr. Snape.]

Mr. Michael Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you have the same photo-copy as I have, you will see that there are a large number of handwritten manuscript amendments alongside the typewritten ones. May we have an assurance that the hand-written amendments are approved ones and that if passed they will not be altered subsequently? Can we be assured that these rather


scruffy amendments are a true and accurate record of the proceedings in another place? I raise this matter because we have had precedents before, particularly in housing matters, where there have been errors which subsequently had to be put right.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Sainsbury: If I may continue my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was illustrating the scale of the amendments that have been introduced. In support of what my hon. Friend has just said, I refer to the third page of the amendments with a six-line manuscript amendment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can assist the hon. Member. The matter which he appears to be raising is not a point of order, but it would be relevant to the matter now being debated.

Mr. George Cunningham: I think that my colleagues would probably appreciate it if I said my expected rude remarks about the situation now and then kept quiet for the rest of the debate.
It is no secret that from the beginning I have regarded this Bill as ill conceived and thoroughly badly prepared. I shall not repeat the strictures on the Department that I have expressed on other occasions. The difficulties we are encountering now at 2.45 a.m. in dealing with 57 Lords amendments in this messy form—some of them only decided in a Lords debate which ended at 6 p.m.—is a final but characteristic and appropriate conclusion to the sort of processing of this legislation that has characterised it throughout.
The Bill will get to the statute book tonight—probably without a Division—through a combination of support from many of my hon. Friends who believe that it is better than nothing, and from the Opposition, who believe that it is better than something. They believe that this rotten Bill, as it is and as it will be when we pass the 57 amendments, is better than the properly drafted, properly constructed and properly conceived Bill that we would have if we put this one where it belongs—in the river—and started afresh next year with the advant-

age of the consideration given to this measure this year.
I do not believe that the Bill will help homeless people. It will cause enormous difficulties to those who try to use it and apply to local authorities. It will cause even more enormous difficulties for local authorities in trying to comprehend their obligations under it.
Having said those few words, I hope that the House will learn the lesson that it is no way to prepare legislation to start with a half-thought-out idea, to treat the Standing Committee as a pre-legislation Committee, and then to go through a process which means that each stage is about two stages behind the stage it is properly at. We are now about ready for the Committee stage of the Bill, and yet here we are finalising Lords amendments at 2.45 in the morning. I must say that in my seven years in the House there is no doubt that this is the worst-drafted, worst-constructed worst-conceived and worst-prepared Bill I have ever seen.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Perhaps we can now get under way with the Bill. For the convenience of the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We must first deal with the Question.

Question, That the Lords amendments be now considered, put and agreed to.

Clause 1

HOMELESS PERSONS AND PERSONS THREATENED WITH HOMELESSNESS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We come to Lords Amendment No. 1—

Mr. Sainsbury: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You ruled me out of order when I was trying to raise certain matters relating to the papers associated with this matter and you informed me that it would be more in order to do so on the next matter. You then did not allow anything to be raised on the next issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was trying to assist the hon. Gentleman. I was indicating that in my view it was not a point of order but was relevant to the debate which we were then having on the Question which has now been passed.

Mr. Sainsbury: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the debate had not then started.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member has not quite followed what has happened. The Minister moved that the amendments should be considered. We were debating whether we should consider them when I mentioned to the hon. Gentleman that the matter could be dealt with in debate at that time, but not on a point of order. We are now dealing with Lords Amendment No. 1.

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 11, leave out "considers" and insert "consider".

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I should like to say for the benefit of hon. Members that there is available a list of the groupings of the Lords amendments. There are 20 groupings.
Lords Amendment No. 1 is a simple drafting amendment to correct the grammar, which will be welcomed even by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). It seeks to treat the term "housing authority" as a plural noun.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 10, leave out "on the part of" and insert "from".

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a drafting amendment to ensure consistency in the wording of the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 28, leave out "or" and insert "such".

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also take Lords Amendments Nos. 4 to 8.

Mr. Ross: This is a series of drafting amendments all relating to the subject of

priority need. I agree that it is helpful to deal with this group together.
Lords Amendment No. 8 is designed to improve the Bill by dividing Clause 1 into two clauses. The first part of the clause will then deal with the definition of "homeless person" and those threatened with homelessness and the second part with the definition of "priority need". They are basically all drafting amendments. They fall into three groups.
The clause as drafted is concerned with two distinct matters: the distinction between homeless persons and those threatened with homelessness, and the definition of those who are in priority need. It is felt that those matters would be better treated in two separate clauses. It is therefore appropriate that the new clause should contain the definition of "priority need" which is now in Clause 13. The reference in Clause 13 is altered accordingly.
The second part of the group of amendments is concerned with the consultations that must take place before an order can be passed. Clause 1(7) requires the Secretary of State, before making an order to change the definition of priority need in any way, to consult such organisations as he thinks "appropriate". The amendment substitutes for that a provision that the order is to be made after "appropriate consultations". Amendment 13 is a definition of "appropriate consultations". As Clause 1(7) did not limit the consultations to be made to consultations with associations, the definition now explicity includes consultations with such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

Mr. Michael Morris: The hon. Member has referred to amendments to Clause 13, but such an amendment does not appear in the group of amendments which we are now discussing. Is he referring to a later amendment? Did he mean Clause 13?

Mr. Ross: I meant Clause 13. We are rejigging the Bill, and it is appropriate that the new clause should also contain the definition of "priority need" at present contained in Clause 13.
The Secretary of State will thus be obliged to hold consultations. Those consultations are to be with such local authority organisations or other persons as he may consider appropriate. The


amendments to line 2 in page 28 adjust the wording of the provision relating to emergencies to bring it into line with the wording used in the joint circular. I hope that that is helpful to the House.

Mr. Michael Morris: I did not find that at all helpful. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has not considered the amendments. I should have thought that Lords Amendment No. 53 should have been taken with these amendments if the matter is to make any sense. If the hon. Member is suggesting that Lords Amendment No. 53 is entirely separate, he mystifies me even more. I hope he will respond, because he is responsible for this confusion concerning what are supposed to be straightforward drafting amendments.

Mr. Sainsbury: Contrary to the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), I found that the explanation of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) was helpful because it proved abundantly clearly that which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has drawn to our attention—that we are totally unprepared to consider the Bill now. It showed to me and other hon. Members that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, the sponsor of the Bill, did not have a clue to what he was talking about on this group of amendments.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight referred to Clause 13, but, as has been pointed out, the amendments to Clause 13 are Lords Amendments Nos. 53 and 54. None of the amendments that we are now discussing is on Clause 13. These are amendments of considerable importance. Whether there should have been a pre-legislative committee on the Bill is another matter, but those of us who participated in the Committee proceedings are aware that differing views were expressed. However, we were all united in agreeing on the importance of these issues not only to those who might be homeless or threatened with homelessness but to the local authorities who would have the responsibility of exercising a statutory power under the terms of this measure.
It is fair to say that the amendments arise out of a desire to make the Bill operable for the local authorities which

will have the statutory duty of operating it. I put it to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight that it must be in the interests of the homeless, in the interests of persons who might be affected by the giving of priority to certain categories of homeless people, who are obviously primarily those already on the waiting list, and in the interests of all housing authorities that the Bill, if it gets on to the statute book, should be in a proper state and be thoroughly understood by us and, I hope, by the representatives of the local authority associations.
If the hon. Gentleman is not able to answer the simplest of questions about the amendments, I do not see how we can be satisfied that the Bill is in that state. He referred to Clause 13. Again I ask, what in these Lords amendments deals with Clause 13? The first of the amendments is in page 2, line 28; the second is also in page 2, line 28; the third is in page 2, line 38.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it the responsibility of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) to select the amendments to be grouped together?

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman referred to Clause 13.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The grouping is merely an indication of what might be convenient. There is no question of anybody selecting them.

Mr. Sainsbury: I think that I had got to the fourth amendment in this group. It is also to page 2. Then we come to page 3, line 3. Lords Amendment No. 8, which is of no little effect, divides Clause 1 into two classes. Substantially, Clause 1 of this important Bill—I do not think that there is any division among us about its importance—is being totally redrafted, yet all we get from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight is a reference to Clause 13. The whole thing is absolute nonsense.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Perhaps I can assist. Clause 13(2) originally referred to "priority need". It read:
Any reference in this Act to a person having a priority need is a reference to his having a priority need for accommodation within the meaning of any order for the time being in force under section 1(4) above.


That is now in Lords Amendment No. 7, and that is why Lords Amendment No. 55, which we shall come to later, deletes Clause 13(2). The reason why all of them cannot be taken at this stage is that Amendment No. 53 deals also with another definition in relation to priority need and must come later. What we are doing is taking into Clause 1 a reference to priority need which appears in Clause 13(2). That is why it is referred to in this group of amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 4 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 2

PRELIMINARY DUTIES OF HOUSING AUTHORITIES IN CASES OF SUSPECTED HOMELESSNESS, ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 3, line 20, leave out from "intentionally" to "and" in line 26.

3.0 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it may be convenient to take Lords Amendments Nos. 15 and 41.

Mr. Ross: The amendment deletes all references to a homeless person being able
with advice and … assistance … to secure that accommodation becomes or does cease to be available for his occupation".
Thus the much-criticised means test provision is deleted. I think that that will be welcomed on both sides of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 3, line 26, leave out from "occupation" to end of line 30, and insert—
(2A) If the authority think fit, they may also make inquiries as to whether the person who applied to them has a local connection with the area of another housing authority.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it may be convenient to take Lords Amendments Nos. 13, 18 to 21, 49 and 52.

Mr. Tony Durant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is it normal for the House to take amendments and new clauses together? Do we not normally take new clauses first and amendments subsequently?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are Lords amendments, and this is a suggestion as to how it is convenient to take them. If there is a more convenient way of doing it, we can do it that way.

Mr. Ross: The amendments give full effect to the sentiments expressed at earlier stages concerning those who move between areas. I think that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) will welcome some of the amendments as they give effect to some of the points that he was making in Committee. I believe that the form now brought forward protects the interests of those who move for legitimate reasons and find themselves homeless, without opening the door to those who seek to work the system.

Mr. Michael Morris: Has the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) been in consulation with the local authority associations? Is this vast change in a form that they would like as opposed to the change that was made after Second Reading and which now appears in the Bill?

Mr. Ross: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, which I am certain will be echoed by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who has had considerable consultations with the Association of District Councils. I draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that we are dealing with the difficulties of Service personnel. I recall that in Committee the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) made a speech on this very point. The amendment meets many calls. I think it is the first time that it has been written into a clause that Service personnel, who may be demobbed in a military town such as Aldershot and who have home connections elsewhere, will be able to look to original home connections in order to be housed if they happen to be homeless. It is a very important addition to the Bill.

Mr. Sainsbury: Perhaps the hon Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross)


will indicate more precisely how this batch of amendments varies the provisions that existed when the Bill left this House. As he appreciates, they are an extensive group of amendments which introduce a large number of new words into the clause. Those of us who have not had the benefit of departmental briefing, however inadequate, do not know the extent and nature of the changes which have been introduced. Apart from the change that the hon. Gentleman has referred to in Amendment No. 52 dealing with service in the Armed Forces, I ask him to explain what he understands by the use of the phrase that I find in Amendment No. 52, and possibly elsewhere, in New Clause F, subsection (1) (d),
Because of any special circumstances.
Perhaps he will indicate what he understands as being "special circumstances" in the context of the new clause.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The question of "special circumstances" is meant to relate to work. It relates to someone moving into an area to take a job but whose normal place of residence might be elsewhere in the country. Such a person would have "special circumstances" to claim that he was homeless.

Mr. Sainsbury: Surely employment is dealt with in New Clause F, subsection (1) (b)—"because he is employed". Presumably, if that is referred to in paragraph (b), the reference in paragraph (d) to "special circumstances" must deal with something else.

Mr. Stephen Ross: It refers to moving to employment, not being already employed. One can think of other circumstances—for example, family associations. There may be other circumstances, which do not immediately come to mind. The original intention was to refer to someone who was coming to an area to take a job. That should be covered.
These amendments meet the genuine fears of local authorities. They set out arrangements for settling which of two authorities should be responsible for dealing with a homeless person in priority need who applies for assistance to an authority which is of the opinion that that person has no local connection with the area.
The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) thinks that he is being very clever. In Committee we had many goes at this problem. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman tabled an amendment to deal with what were described as the mobile homeless. We think that this formula adequately meets the situation. It does not bring in a cumbersome appeals procedure. It writes in a procedure whereby the Secretary of State can set out the conditions for local authorities. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) for the way in which he has responded to criticisms that were made in Committee. We feared that the Bill as originally drawn would have the consequence of certain magnet authorities becoming responsible for an undue preponderance of the homelessness problem. In Committee we sought to try to deal with the matter in our own way and we then had a second attempt on Report.
I point out to my lion. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) that we sought to deal with the matter in Clause 4, subsections (5) to (13) inclusive. That was the best attempt that we could make, as I acknowledged at the time, with the assistance of the Department and the parliamentary draftsman. It appeared on closer examination that not all the i's were dotted or all the t's crossed. There were certain loopholes that might have caused problems for both local authorities and homeless persons.
This group of amendments seeks to delete subsections (5) to (13) and to rewrite them entirely. My hon. Friend will find that those are now set out in New Clause A. That new clause proceeds to set out the revised procedures for dealing with a homeless family that goes to a particular authority and says "We are homeless" but the authority discovers that the family recently came from another part of the country.
The next amendment—"Meaning of local connection"—defines the circumstances in which the authority that is being asked to rehouse the family can establish whether the family has a closer connection with another authority.

Mr. Sainsbury: The meaning of "local connection" is important. Will


my hon. Friend refer me to the amendment which provides a definition?

Mr. Rossi: My hon. Friend will see in Lords Amendment No. 52 a definition of "local connection". Once that has been established, the authority against which the claim has been made, called the notifying authority, can inform another authority, called the notified authority, that there is probably a local connection. That being done, the rest of the amendment—it is not numbered, but it is the amendment to page 6, line 33—goes on to deal with the relationships between the notifying and notified authorities. It does so in reasonably clear language and provides for arrangements to be made by local authorities between themselves to govern the situation where there might be areas of doubt as to whether a family belongs more to one authority than to another. Where the authorities come to an agreement, generally the Secretary of State, after appropriate consultations, can lay an order setting out what the arrangements shall be. Such an order is subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament.
Perhaps the best possible attempt has now been made to try to deal with the principle that the House enunciated both in Committee and on Report.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Member said that his amendments were not numbered. That will create difficulties. He will see on the third page of the amendments that the amendment in question is numbered as Lords Amendment No. 20. Perhaps the staple has been fastened through the number. He will see that the amendment is numbered.

Mr. Rossi: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; the staple has been fixed through the number.

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend has given the House a much clearer explanation of the meaning and consequence of these amendments than we were able to obtain from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). We are grateful for my hon. Friend's expertise in these matters. Will he answer the question that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight was unable to answer? What does he understand by the phrase "special circumstances" in Lords Amendment No. 52?

Mr. Stephen Ross: Perhaps I may intervene here, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to explain that "special circumstances" is written in to allow local authorities the discretion of accepting people if they wish to do so.

Mr. Rossi: I am glad that I have been able to satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) in some part. I am grateful to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) for dealing with the points raised on Report by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) concerning the problem of Service men. There are areas where men leave Service camps and the question arises of which authority has responsibilty for rehousing. That has now been adequately dealt with.
I wish to raise with the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight a question about Lords Amendment No. 20, where subsection (1)(a)(i) reads:
nor any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him.
The same phrase occurs in Lords Amendment No. 50. The problem is this. When we dealt with a similar concept in Clause 1, the Bill as originally drafted used that wording in dealing with the categories of people who had to be rehoused as homeless persons. In Clause 1, a "homeless person" is said to include a person with no accommodation and any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him. We decided to alter the wording in Clause 1 and to use a different phrase. We now refer to
… a member of his family or in circumstances in which the housing authority considers it reasonable for that person to reside with him".
It occurs to me that we might be in some difficulty if we use two different phrases to describe the same category of person.
3.15 a.m.
Clearly, the intention of Lords Amendment No. 20 is to enable the authority to rehouse the applicant together with the category of person who has to be housed with the applicant within the definition of Clause 1, but we are using different wording.
When the courts are required to construe Acts of Parliament, they assume that Parliament's intention was to convey a different meaning if different words


are used in two parts of an Act. Confusion could be caused at a later date if this matter had to be litigated. We have reintroduced—perhaps inadvertently through Lords amendments—words that we decided to change at an earlier stage. It is probably too late to amend the Lords amendments, but a difficulty could arise and it is not a happy situation.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I do not wish to cross swords with the hon. Member on a legal matter. The new amendment reads:
A housing authority are not subject to a duty under section 4(4A) above—
(a) if they are of the opinion".
Does not that cover the point?

Mr. Rossi: I am not sure that it does It certainly leaves the local authority a wider discretion than it has in Clause 1 about member of a family, because that clause states:
in which the housing authority considers it reasonable for that person to reside with him".
That involves a subjective judgment. I am not sure that the same argument applies to Lords Amendment No. 50, which states:
For the purposes of this Act accommodation is only available for a person's occupation if it is available for occupation both by him and by any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him.
There is no question there of the opinion of the authority being called in, and the subjective test does not exist. Therefore, if my remarks were not entirely appropriate to Lords Amendment No. 20, they are fully appropriate to Lords Amendment No. 50.
I must put down a marker to warn that we have perhaps run into a little difficulty with the wording, probably because of the rush with which these matters have been brought upon us.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 3

DUTIES TO NOTIFY DECISIONS AND REASONS

Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 3, line 38, leave out Clause 3.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment paves the way for the new clause after Clause 5 dealing with duties of notification. We shall be discussing the substantive points at that stage as they turn on the acceptance of aments to Clauses 4 and 5. Therefore, I ask the House to accept the amendment without further discussion.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4

DUTIES OF HOUSING AUTHORITIES TO HOMELESS PERSONS AND PERSONS THREATENED WITH HOMELESSNESS

Lords Amendment No. 15 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 5, line 5, leave out from "that" to "is" in line 7 and insert "he".

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a drafting amendment which is just to simplify the wording.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to Lords Amendment No. 17, with which we are to take Lords Amendment No. 51 with the three manuscript amendments thereto.

Mr. Sainsbury: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you indicate where we can obtain a copy of the manuscript amendments?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If they are not available, I am prepared to suspend the sitting for a few minutes until hon. Members can obtain them. I took it that hon. Members had copies of the manuscript amendments.

Mr. Rossi: I have a copy of the manuscript amendments which by courtesy has been handed to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this document was handed to me in the Chamber only a few moments ago. It could well be that other hon. Members are disadvantaged by not having been supplied with copies by those who have put down the manuscript amendments.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I obtained copies of the manuscript amendments for myself from the Vote Office before these proceedings began.

Mr. Michael Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I, too, went to the Vote Office at the beginning of these proceedings and I was certainly not handed any manuscript amendment. May we know whether any other manuscript amendments are to be cast upon us during these proceedings?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is only right that hon. Members should have all the documents that are necessary to dispose of the business. I assure the hon. Members who have raised these points of order that there are only these three manuscript amendments, which are to be taken with Lords Amendments Nos. 17 and 51. If they are satisfied, I can give them copies now and we can proceed. If they feel otherwise, I am prepared to suspend the sitting for 10 minutes until they get copies.

Mr. Rossi: I must ask that we follow your last suggestion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is only right that hon. Members should study these amendments. Censure has been passed on my hon. Friends for not having obtained copies of these amendments from the Vote Office. One could well ask when they were put in the Vote Office. They were certainly not there when the proceedings concerning this Bill began, because they were thought up and produced after we had started our discussions. Therefore, unless hon. Members are to be expected to walk in and out of the Chamber every 10 minutes to see whether new manuscript amendments have been tabled, it is an impossible situation. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I feel that it would be in the interests of the House if the sitting were suspended for a short time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If we can settle this matter by suspending the sitting, that will facilitate the business.

I suspend the sitting for 10 minutes.

Sitting suspended at 3.23 a.m.

3.33 a.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 5, line 11, leave out "appropriate" and insert
will give him a reasonable opportunity of himself securing accommodation for his occupation.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendment No. 51 and the amendments thereto.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I beg to move the manuscript amendments to Lords Amendment No. 51—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: When we get to Lords Amendment No. 51, the hon. Gentleman may move the manuscript amendments formally, if he wishes to press them.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: In that case, perhaps I may speak to the manuscript amendments.
Lords Amendment No. 51 is one which the House will regret passing as it stands. The effect is to remove the duty upon the local authority to provide accommodation for a family who have become homeless intentionally, and "intentionally" is defined to mean someone who has deliberately done or failed to do something in consequence of which he ceases to occupy accommodation which is available for his occupation.
I do not know of any homeless family of whom it would not be possible to say, going back in history, that they had failed to do something which they should have done. I have people coming to my surgery almost every week who have foolishly withheld their rent because of their landlord's failure to carry out repairs. That is an intentional act. I have people who have failed to apply for social security in order to pay their rent. That is an intentional act. Then there is the man occupying tied accommodation who quarrels with his employer and consequently loses his employment and his accommodation. That would have been an intentional act.
My amendments would add at the end of subsections (1) and (2) of New Clause


E, to be inserted by Lords Amendment No. 51, the words:
and does or fails to do so with the primary intention of securing accommodation under the provisions of this Act.
That is the evil to which the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has been directing his argument—the person who deliberately becomes homeless in order to be provided with accommodation under the measure. If we say that somebody is intentionally homeless because at some time in the period before becoming homeless he did or failed to do something intentionally, we are cutting out just about everybody whom the Bill is intended to assist. I urge the House to accept the manuscript amendment. Without it we shall destroy the purpose of the Bill. Its value will be very small.
My third amendment is to leave out the words "in good faith" inserted by the other place in subsection (3) of New Clause E. I appreciate that the words were put in at the request of the charities, with most of which I am in close association and agreement, but their effect is to put an additional burden on the defence when it is a question of establishing whether someone has done the act deliberately. Previously, all that a person had to prove to establish that he had not done something deliberately was that he was unaware of any relevant fact. The insertion of the words "in good faith" does not advance the object for which I believe they were inserted, and it would be preferable to remove them.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: The House is having to debate the amendments within four hours of receiving them from the Vote Office. Those that we are considering now go to the heart of the principle of the Bill. They arise from a major debate in this Chamber only a fortnight ago in a Report stage that took up a full Friday sitting. It would be wrong for the House to pass by the formulation that finally expresses what has been the nub of the debate on the Bill since Second Reading—the concept of self-inflicted homelessness—without some debate on it.
I hope that the House will sympathetically consider the manuscript amendments and will note that, although they were drafted at 2 a.m., they bear the signa-

tures of half the Government Back Benchers who served on the Committee and would have received more than half if the others could have been found in the precincts after that hour. That is an indication of the unease about the present formulation.
It has been alleged that the definition of "intention" meets the objections raised by the seven charities that have monitored the Bill from the start. That may well be so, but one of our difficulties in receiving 54 Lords amendments at five minutes after midnight is that we have been unable to consult the charities or anybody else. The Lords amendments do not meet the objections that I spelt out on Report; nor do they entirely succeed in meeting the terms of the letter sent by my hon. Friend the Minister to those of us who served on that Committee that the amendments would
make clear that the intentional homeless are to be construed as those who act with deliberation to bring homelessness about, not those who find themselves in the grip of circumstances.
At report stage I felt that a number of people found themselves in the grip of a number of different circumstances which could be considered intentional homelessness.
For instance, what does a local authority do about someone who appears to be homeless as a result of rent arrears? How does the authority determine whether that was intentional, or the result of loss of income, or difficulty in meeting the rent. A number of hon. Members have difficulty in accepting that arrears arise other than from an intention, but there is the case of people having to default because of change of circumstances. How then do local authorities sort out who is homeless as a result of intentional fault and who is not?
There are a number of other points which I put on Report when I spoke for 28 minutes and incurred odium and I suspect that I would incur even greater odium if I spoke for 28 minutes at this time. However, on a strict legal interpretation of the cases I instanced on Report those people could legitimately be refused help by a local authority. All we are seeking to do in the manuscript amendment is to express a genuine fear about not getting the spirit of the clause across to local authorities.
It will not be easy for any applicant to abuse his rights, because of the many amendments to the Bill. To succeed in getting accommodation by this Bill, he will have to establish that he is homeless within the meaning of the Bill, that he is within the area of the authority to whom he applies, that he does not have a home with relatives in another locality, and that he is within a priority group as defined. Having done all that, as a result of this amendment he will have to show that he is not intentionally homeless.
It would be a minor concession to accept this redefining of intentionality, or of intentionality to misuse and abuse this legislation and not simply to become homeless.

Mr. Stephen Ross: This argument has been rehearsed many times. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) made a good speech on Report; so did Lord Gifford, to whom I listened on the Friday before last and last Friday. This is a matter with which we tried to deal and this new clause goes some way towards meeting the point, but it is impossible to get both sides to agree to the wording.
The Association of District Councils is very much opposed to it. Discussions have taken place on slightly different wording, but local authorities feel that it would be putting an unnecessary burden—a sort of double proof, as lawyers describe it—on them. None of us wants to disqualify other than those who set out to buck the system so it will rest on the authority to decide that a person is intentionally homeless. The authorities are obliged to give reasons in writing, and that is extremely important.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) referred to the addition to the Bill earlier today in the Lords of the expression "good faith". I went to great trouble to get into the Bill words that would meet the fears of the voluntary bodies that one or two local authorities would try to find a way out of the Bill. It was at their request that these words were added and we went to great trouble to see that a manuscript amendment was put down this morning in the Lords and passed this afternoon.
If the voluntary bodies have difficulties with definition, it is beyond me. but they

sought to fill a gap in the Bill last night and this morning and I am disappointed that they are not satisfied when the amendments seemed to meet the point last night.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: The proposal to delete the words was not put forward as a result of consultation with the voluntary bodies. It represents entirely my view and that of those with whom I have discussed the matter. The words detract from rather than add to the Bill.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Ross: I appreciate the point, but I cannot ask the House to accept the manuscript amendments. That would be to break faith with the people with whom I have had discussions. The manuscript amendments would put the onus back on the local authorities.
It has been rightly said that we have tried to achieve a consensus on the Bill. It is not a bad Bill for that. That we have had discussions and have come up with an amended Bill which seems to go a long way to meeting the fears of local authorities and the voluntary bodies is an achievement, in spite of all the rude remarks made in the House.
I ask the House to agree to Lords Amendments No. 17 and 51 as drafted and request the withdrawal of the manuscript amendments.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: I support what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has said about the Lords amendments and the manuscript amendments.
This matter has preoccupied and exercised the minds of hon. Members in Committee and on Report. We were concerned to ensure that genuinely homeless people would be provided for and found homes by local authorities, but, at the same time, we wished to ensure that the door was not opened to people to abuse the system, and deliberately to create homelessness for themselves in order to be rehoused by local authorities before people who had been patiently waiting for many years on council housing waiting lists. We wanted to stop queue-jumping.
We have tried a whole range of words in order to achieve our aim. In Committee we spoke of people who were homeless through circumstances which they could have foreseen. Objections were


raised to that form of wording on the basis that if somebody defaulted on his mortgage because he had not the money they were circumstances which he could have foreseen and he would have been penalised as a result of using that form of wording. Objections were raised to the form of wording which referred to people who had been rendered homeless through no fault of their own.
Now we have the wording proposed by the other place, which is the best wording that parliamentary counsel have been able to devise to try to meet the clear Mention of hon. Members in Committee and on Report. It is always possible for people to nitpick over wording and to be clever about it. The difficulty is to achieve in legal terms something which reflects as precisely and in as watertight a way as possible the intention of Parliament. Given all the limitations on language, this is the best wording that we have been able to devise. We would seek to alter this wording at our peril.
Let us look at the wording which has been criticised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann). It is:
becomes threatened with homelessness intentionally if he deliberately does or fails to do anything, in consequence of which he ceases to occupy accommodation which is available for his occupation and which it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy.
Let us consider some circumstances. Let us take the case of someone who goes into an off-season holiday let, to which the protection of the Rent Acts does not apply. At the end of the letting he goes to the local authority and tells them that he is homeless because his landlord—with the absolute right—has turned him out. Therefore, that person has deliberately done something to render himself homeless.
If that sounds rather far-fetched, perhaps the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will permit me to tell the House of an incident involving him. A short while after he had introduced this Bill and had received a certain amount of publicity as a result, a man and his wife turned up at the hon. Member's surgery and asked him to rehouse them under his Bill because they were homeless. He

asked them where they came from and they said "Portsmouth". The hon. Member then asked them what accommodation they had there. They told him they were council tenants who had left voluntarily because they thought that the Isle of Wight was a better place in which to live. They believed that the hon. Member's Bill imposed a duty on the council to rehouse them in the Isle of Wight.
These poor, misguided people had created a desperate situation for themselves because they believed that this Bill would help them. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight saw immediately that he would have to introduce a form of wording into the Bill in order to remove any possible suggestion that people behaving foolishly in this way would have the right. Therefore, we have the words "intentionally" and "deliberately".
The other words are "or fails to do". These would cover a situation in which someone deliberately withheld his rent so that the landlord obtained a possession order to which a defence was not entered in the county court, resulting in that person being made homeless.
If we look at the words that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden is trying to introduce to mitigate some of the harshness, we see that all they would succeed in doing is rendering this clause unworkable. The wording requires a local authority to look into an intention of an intention. It does not require a great deal of thought or speculation to realise what a task this would impose on ordinary council officers in having to examine the motivation of people to this extent. If the hon. Member pressed his amendment and required local authorities to do that, the Bill simply would not work.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: The intention in my amendment is the intention referred to in the word "intentional" in the clause. Will the hon. Member tell us what would happen in the examples that I gave—of a person withholding rent, not because he deliberately wants to be made homeless, but because he wants to force the landlord to make repairs; the person who did not pay because he did not go to the Social Security office when he should have done; or the person who


went into holiday accommodation hoping to find something else, but failed to do so? Would all these people be excluded under the amendment as it stands?

Mr. Rossi: I should have thought not. They would then be acting in good faith, which was the intention of the wording introduced by the charities into subsection (3). That was part of the representations made by the charities to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. I had doubts about the wisdom of inserting those words, but they insisted on them.
The code of guidance to be produced by the Government for local authorities will spell out to local authorities the way in which the Government and Parliament expect local authorities to act when exercising their discretion under the Bill. That is the fail-safe system. It is impossible to spell out in taut, legal language wording to cover every possible permutation and combination of human activity. All we can do is to use words that cover as best we can the generality of cases. But within that, and especially where discretion is being allowed, as it is being allowed here, the local authority could determine whether it houses or re-houses in certain circumstances, and guidance and help can be given to those authorities by the Secretary of State in more protracted and extended language in the code of guidance. That code is something that will have a statutory backing.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden should be content to leave it at that instead of seeking to introduce wording into the clause to make the task of local authorities impossible in requiring them to exercise judgments over the mentality of a person, which they are not fit or competent to do. I hope on that basis he will think twice and withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Sainsbury: I was grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) for emphasising that the House is in considerable difficulty in dealing with this Bill in the way it is presented to us.
We have not been able to consult the charities closely concerned with this Bill, but with the benefit of the suspension granted to us one has been able to con-

sider this important new clause and the manuscript amendment to it more carefully than one has been able to consider some of the other provisions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is not a new clause but a Lords amendment.

Mr. Sainsbury: The Lords amendment seeks to add a new clause, New Clause E. It relates to page 11, line 7, and seeks to insert New Clause E—or that is what it says on my copy.
I conclude that the key word is "deliberately". It is right that we should be concerned not to exclude from the Bill's provisions cases of the type mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham)—in other words, those who have not paid rent because they did not think they were entitled to a rent allowance or rebate and did nothing about it. But in those circnumstances they have not done something deliberately. The words are
deliberately does or fails to do".
If it is not something they know about, they cannot deliberately do it or fail to do it. It appears that only two Members on the Government side of the House signed one manuscript amendment and the other manuscript amendment has only one such signature. The manuscript amendment complicates the problem of the housing authorities in making a judgment on the meaning of the word. It would not reinforce the protection given to those cases that have been referred to.
I therefore support the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) on this occasion in asking the House to approve the Lords amendment and to reject the manuscript amendment to the Lords amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 agreed to.

Clause 5

DUTY OF HOUSING AUTHORITIES TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY PROTECTION FOR MOVABLE PROPERTY

Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 6, line 34, after "authority" insert

"have become subject to a duty towards a person under any provision of this Act to which


this subsection applies (whether or not they are still subject to any such duty) and".

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords amendments Nos. 23 to 33 and No. 40.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Ross: An undertaking was given at an earlier stage that the duty to protect the property of homeless people would be looked at again in the light of points made during debate, and these amendments are the result of that.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 23 to 33 agreed to.

New Clause 6

DUTIES OF NOTIFICATION

Lords amendment: No. 34, in page 7, line 8, at end insert new Clause C—
C.—(1) On completing their inquiries under section 2 above, a housing authority shall notify the person who applied to them for accommodation or for assistance in obtaining accommodation of their decision on the question whether he is homeless or threatened with homlesssness.

(2) If they notify him that their decision is that he is homeless or threatened with homelessness, they shall at the same time notify him of their decision on the question whether he has a priority need.

(3) If they notify him that their decision is that he has a priority need, they shall at the same time notify him

(a)of their decision on the question whether he became homeless or thereatened with homelessness intentionally, and
(b)whether they have notified or propose to notify any other housing authority that his application has been made.

(4) If they notify him—

(a) that they are not satisfied—

(i)that he is homeless or threatened with homelessness, or
(ii)that he has a priority need, or
(b) that they are satisfied that he became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally, or
(c) that they have notified or propose to to notify another housing authority that his application has been made, they shall at the same time notify him of their reasons.

(5) When it has been determined whether subsection (3) or (4) of section [Responsibility as between housing authorities] above applies to a person to whom a notification under that section relates, it shall he the duty of the notifying authortity to notify him—

(a)whether they or the notified authority are the authority whose duty it is under that section to secure that accommodation becomes available for his occupation and
(b)of the reasons why the authority subject to that duty are subject to it.

(6) If a housing authority cease in respect of the property of any person to be subject to the duty imposed by subsection (1) of section 5 above or, subject to subsection (6A) below, to have the power conferred by subsection (1B) of that section, it shall be their duty to notify him—

(a) that they have ceased to be subject to the duty or, as the case may he, to have the power, and
(b) of the reason why they are of the opinion mentioned in sections 5 (3) (c) above.

(6A) An authority who cease to have the power conferred by section 5(10) above in respect of the property of any person need not notify him that they have ceased to have the power unless they have exercised it.

(7) Subject to subsections (9) and (10) below, any notification of reasons required to he given to a person under this section shall he treated as having been given to him only if the requirement specified in subsection (8) below is satisfied.

(8) The requirement mentioned in subsection (7) above is that any such notification and reasons shall for a reasonable period be made available by the housing authority at their office for collection by or on behalf of the person to whom they are required to be given.

(9) A notification required under subsection (6) above may he given to the person to whom it is required to be given only—

(a)by delivering it to him, or
(b)by leaving it at his proper address, or
(c)by sending it by post to him at that address.

(10) For the purposes of this section and section 26 of the Interpretation Act 1889 (service of documents by post) in its application to this section, the proper address of any person to whom such a notification is to he given shall he his last known address."

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords Amendment No. 43.

Mr. Ross: I should draw the attention of the House to a misprint in the Order Paper. Lords Amendment No. 43 says


"leave out 'three'". It should say "two". I hope that that will be noted.
The new clause reflects the changes made in the duties of local authorities to notify those who have sought their help. The authorities must notify decisions on priority of need, mobility, intentionality, and protection and storage of furniture. They must give reasons in appropriate cases and notifications about the storage of furniture, or they must give notice or arrange for the notification to be collected at their offices. No specific notice is made about the notification being in writing since it is clear from the context that it must be in the form of a document that can be collected or posted.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6

CO-OPERATION BETWEEN AUTHORITIES

Lords amendment: No. 35, in page 7, line 18, leave out "or 4" and insert "4 or".

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords Amendments Nos. 36 and 38.

Mr. Ross: This is essentially a drafting amendment which makes clear that a body that is required to co-operate with a housing authority is not required to exercise any of the latter's functions except those to which the request relates. The other amendments are all consequential.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 agreed to.

Clause 7

POWER TO CHANGE

Lords amendment: No. 39, in page 7, line 35, leave out "(3) or 4" and insert
(4) 4 or (Responsibility as between housing authorities)".

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment is consequential on other amendments which result in the duties of a housing authority to secure provision of accommodation being included in Clauses 2, 3 and 4.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments No. 40 and 41 agreed to.

Clause 8

OFFENCES

Lords amendment: No. 42, in page 8, line 21, leave out "fails to give information reasonably required by the authority" and insert
knowingly withholds information which the authority have reasonably required him to give".

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is purely a self-explanatory drafting amendment.

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman says that the amendment is self-explantory. Perhaps it is, because it is, unfortunately, five minutes past four in the morning, but it is not as self-explanatory to me as it should be. It seems to me that it significantly weakens the effect of the clause, which introduces I think necessary but, I hope, to be seldom used penalties for misleading the housing authority, particularly in the matter of not giving it information. The words
failing to give information reasonably required
are surely clearer.
Perhaps I may quote an example. If the couple to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) referred had a cottage somewhere and failed to give information about it to the housing authority in the Isle of Wight, there would be no question that they had failed
to give information reasonably required
about the accommodation available to them. But inserting the words "knowingly withholds information" seems to make the burden of proof a great deal more difficult for the housing authority, particularly in the word "knowingly". Could the hon. Gentleman explain a little more clearly why the amendment improves rather than weakens this clause?

Mr. Stephen Ross: I gather that this follows a precedent from the Road Traffic Act 1972, which concerns declaration of information given to insurance companies. It does not affect the objectives of the clause but if anything makes it clearer. A failure to give information is not an offence unless that information was knowingly withheld. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that explanation.

Mr. George Cunningham: I think that the Lords amendment does make the clause clearer, but whether the parallel with the Road Traffic Act is a good one for this purpose I am highly doubtful on the basis of what has been said. Surely the point is that in this case a person is having to apply, volunteer information

Division No. 230]
AYES
[4.08 a.m.


Armstrong, Ernest
Gilbert, Dr John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Ashton, Joe
Golding, John
Parry, Robert


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Graham, Ted
Pendry, Tom


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Penhaligon, David


Bates, Alf
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hardy, Peter
Roper, John


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Harper, Joseph
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hooson, Emlyn
Skinner, Dennis


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Horam, John
Small, William


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Huckfield, Les
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hunter, Adam
Snape, Peter


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Spearing, Nigel


Canavan, Dennis
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
John, Brynmor
Stallard, A. W.


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Stoddart, David


Coleman, Donald
Judd, Frank
Stott, Roger


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Kaufman, Gerald
Strang, Gavin


Cowans, Harry
Kerr, Russell
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Leadbitter, Ted
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Crawshaw, Richard
McElhone, Frank
Tinn, James


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Urwin, T. W.


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Davidson, Arthur
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Deakins, Eric
Madden, Max
Ward, Michael


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Mahon, Simon
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dempsey, James
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Dormand, J. D.
Marks, Kenneth
Woodall, Alec


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Millan. Rt Hon Bruce
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Duffy, A. E. P.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Eadie, Alex
Molloy, William



Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Moyle, Roland
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Noble, Mike
Mr. Richard Wainwright and


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Halloran, Michael
Mr. A. J. Beith.


Freeson, Reginald






NOES



Durant, Tony




TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Tim Sainsbury and




Mr. Michael Morris.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 43 agreed to.

and make a claim. I think that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), who objected to the weakening of the provision, was right to do so. Some false claims will not be caught by the amended language but they would have been caught by the previous language.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I can only add that there were people in this House who felt that the clause was perhaps a bit too tough as originally drafted. I am told that the amended language will be perfectly adequate.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 1.

Clause 9

GUIDANCE TO AUTHORITIES BY SECRETARY OF STATE

Lords amendment: No. 44, in page 9, line 6, leave out "authorities or".

4.15 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I understand that the Government never intended to issue guidance to individual local authorities. It may be that at some time or other they would want to issue guidance to certain groups of authorities, such as the London boroughs, or non-metropolitan districts, or conceivably to authorities in a certain area in the event of an emergency, such as a flood. I am satisfied that the effect of Clause 9, if amended as proposed, will cover all those situations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10

FINANCIAL AND OTHER ASSISTANCE TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS CONCERNED WITH HOMELESSNESS

Lords amendment:s No. 45, in page 9, line 18, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it may be convenient to take Lords Amendments Nos. 46 and 47.

Mr. Rossi: These amendments are the result of views expressed in the House that we should do all that we reasonably can to ensure that funds granted or loaned to voluntary organisations under the clause are properly applied. I wish to express some disappointment on this amendment because it does not go as far as the House indicated it would like the sponsor of the Bill to go. The House will recall that when we were discussing on Report the question of payments of money to voluntary organisations, either by way of grant or loan, the experience of the Greater London Council concerning the Longfellow Road incident was recalled. In that incident moneys were granted to

voluntary organisations, insufficient care was taken in the granting of that money, and certainly no scrutiny was made as to how the money was applied. The result was that the public lost considerable amounts of money and no one knows the destination of that money.
In Committee and on Report proposals were put forward to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and the Government. The first was that voluntary organisations should be required to keep strict books of account of all moneys either loaned or granted to them by public bodies. Those amendments found their way into the Bill and there is provision for the keeping of proper books of account by local authorities.
The second proposal was that we should go further and not only require voluntary bodies to keep proper books of account but require public bodies granting or loaning that money to ensure that they kept a scrutiny on the voluntary organisations to ensure that the money granted or loaned was used for the purposes for which they received it. I understood that that would happen.
The House may recall that on Report I moved an amendment which required public bodies to have due regard to the proper application of the moneys that were received or paid by them. That wording was criticised, I think by the hon. Member for Islington North and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), because he felt it was inappropriate language to use. The language was borrowed from legal documents in connection with trustees and the application of moneys in trust. The parliamentary draftsmen were therefore asked to devise another form of wording which would give effect to the concept.
Lords Amendment No. 47 is the result of that attempt and I feel that it does not meet the principle we sought to enunciate in the House. Lords Amendment No. 47 requires only that as a condition of receiving money the voluntary organisations shall give an undertaking to the authorities lending or granting the money about the purpose to which the money would be directed. It also gives the authorities power to require voluntary organisations to certify information regarding the application of the moneys in the form required by the authorities.
The trouble is that there is nothing in the amendment requiring the authorities themselves properly to scrutinise the undertakings to ensure that day are obliged to examine public books of account. It may be argued that it is a question of common practice for local authorities and certainly for any borough treasurer worth his salt, where an authority lends money to an outside body, to keep a close eye on the money to make sure that it can be repaid to his authority on the due date.
A totally different situation arises when we are considering grants of money. There is not quite the same incentive on the part of local authority officers to see how money granted is applied. That was precisely the Longfellow Road situation, and a public scandal arose from it.
I understood that it was the wish of the House to introduce wording that would require local authorities to take the trouble to inquire whether the money they gave was used for the purpose for which it was given. The amendment does not do that. It does not go far enough. We are disappointed that in this respect the sponsor of the Bill has not carried out to the full the arrangement that he made with us.

Mr. Sainsbury: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). The possible abuse of public money has caused concern in London. I am particularly concerned that the situation might rebound on the whole of the housing association movement, which should not be damaged by the behaviour of some bodies which were associated with the movement but were not within it.
The amendment omits the vital requirement in subsection (3) that the local authorities should ensure that the voluntary organisations keep
proper books of account and have them inspected and audited.
It is strange that there were five lines in Clause 10(3) when it left us. Now we have 55 lines and yet we manage to leave out the vital words.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Has the hon. Gentleman read subsection (4D) of Lords amendment No. 47? It states:

The conditions subject to which assistance is given under subsection (1), (2) or (4) above shall in all cases include, in addition to any conditions determined or agreed under the subsection in question, conditions requiring the voluntary organisation receiving the assistance—

(a)to keep proper books of account and have them audited in such manner as may be specified, and
(b)to keep records indicating how they have used the money, furniture or other goods or premises made available to them, and
(c)to submit the books of account and records for inspection—

(i)By the Secretary of State if assistance was given to them under subsection (1) above, and
(ii)by the housing authority or the Greater London Council, as the case may be, if assistance was given to them under subsection (2) or (4) above."

Those words are stronger than those in the subsection that is to be removed.

Mr. Sainsbury: I agree that the amendment spells out in full bureaucratic language what is meant by the brief expression "keep proper books". But the original Bill explained that succinctly. We now say the same thing in more words and leave out the requirement that conditions are to be imposed upon the voluntary organisations.
It is not a sufficiently serious matter upon which to seek to divide the House at this stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 agreed to.

Clause 11

TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY AND STAFF

Lords amendment: No. 48, in page 10, line 5, leave out "(whether real or personal)".

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a drafting change. It is not a matter of particular substance. The term "real and personal" would not be appropriate in Scotland. It is better that it be omitted.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 agreed to.

New Clause E

PERSONS INTENTIONALLY HOMELESS OR THREATENED WITH HOMELESSNESS

Lords amendment: No. 51, in page 11, line 7, at end insert new Clause E—

"—(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, for the purposes of this Act a person becomes homeless intentionally if he deliberately does or fails to do anything in consequence of which he ceases to occupy accommodation which is available for his occupation and which it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, for the purposes of this Act a person becomes threatened with homelessness intentionally if he deliberately does or fails to do anything the likely result of which is that he will be forced to leave accommodation which is available for his occupation and which it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy.

(3) An act or omission in good faith on the part of a person who was unaware of any relevant fact is not to be treated as deliberate for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2) above.

(4) Regard may be had, in determining for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) above whether it would have been reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation, to the general circumstances prevailing in relation to housing in the area of the housing authority to whom he applied for accommodation or for assistance in obtaining accommodation."

Read a Second time.

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment, in subsection (1) at end insert—
'and does or fails to do so with the primary intention of securing accommodation under the provisions of this Act.'—[Mr. Douglas-Mann.]

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment, in subsection (2), at end insert—
and does or fails to do so with the primary intention of securing accommodation under the provisions of this Act".—[Mr. Douglas-Mann].

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment, in subsection (3), leave out "in good faith".—[Mr. Douglas-Mann.]

Amendment negatived.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 52 agreed to.

Clause 13

INTERPETATION

Lords amendment: No. 53, in page 11, line 14, at end insert—
appropriate consultations" means consultations—

(a)with such associations representing relevant authorities, and
(b)with such other persons,

as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;
available", in relation to accommodation shall be construed in accordance with section [Meaning of "accommodation available for occupation".] above".

4.30 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendments Nos. 54 and 55.

Mr. Ross: These amendments deal with the interpretation and indexing of a number of expressions discussed on earlier amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 agreed to.

Clause 14

REPEALS AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT

Lords amendment: No. 56 in page 12, line 15, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Stephen Ross: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendment No. 57.

Mr. Ross: These are purely drafting amendments. They move provisions for repeals to the end of the clause in order to place them after the consequential


amendments in subsections (3) and (4) and at the end of the clause, where logically they belong. They make not substantive change.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 57 agreed to.

PETITIONS

Plaistow Maternity Hospital

4.32 a.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg leave to present a petition, signed by 8,863 residents of the London borough of Newham.

The petition reads as follows:

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled;

The Humble Petition of the undersigned ratepayers and residents of the London Borough of Newham Sheweth:

That the statement of the Secretary of State for Social Services that he will permit the closure of the Plaistow Maternity Hospital has given grave offence to the citizens and burgesses of the London Borough of Newham;

That notwithstanding the requests of a deputation of representatives of the Borough Council, the Community Health Council, the Voluntary Agencies Council and Members of Parliament of the Borough of Newham, the Secretary of State did not engage in local consultation, or cause a clinical assessment to be made, or require an early commencement of building of replacement facilities on the site of the new Woodside Hospital;

That the savings on revenue costs stated by the said Secretary from the said closure and other closures, would in a period of less than five years pay for costs of new facilities;

That the said Secretary of State has made no statement concerning the likely additional population of 20,000 persons resulting from the development of adjacent docklands;

Wherefore your petitioners pray that this Honourable House will require that the said Secretary of State for Social Services shall suspend, change, or otherwise vary his permission for the closure of the Plaistow Maternity Hospital, or any other similar facilities serving the Borough of Newham, unless and until new alternative

facilities are completed at the Woodside Hospital site.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.

To lie upon the Table.

Disabled Persons (Mobility)

4.34 a.m.

Mr. John Farr: I beg leave to present a petition, signed by 1,127 people from Market Harborough in my constituency, in relation to the National Mobility Campaign. These signatures were obtained recently, and the main concern of those who signed this document was that they felt that disabled people should have the choice of either a mobility allowance or a special or adapted car.

The petition reads as follows:

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled. Whereby the statement of the Secretary of State for the Social Services on 23rd July 1976 on mobility policy for the disabled causes your humble petitioners great concern in that it removes the assurance of continued independent mobility from those severely disabled persons now driving invalid tricycles, and condemns many new applicants for mobility assistance to be housebound as a result of the inadequate levels of the mobility allowance. Your humble petitioners pray that your honourable House call upon the Secretary of State for the Social Services to promote policies and propose such necessary legislation as will:

(a)Immediately guarantee the rights of comtinued independent mobility to current invalid tricycle drivers when the supply of tricycles is exhausted, in order to allay their great anxiety for the future.
(b)Restore immediately the option of a suitably adapted car or an invalid tricycle to new applicants for mobility assistance, under the powers granted to the Secretary of State for the Social Services by Section 33 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968.
(c)Actively promote steps to design and produce specialised vehicles which will enable an increasing number of severely disabled people to enjoy independent mobility.
(d)Yourself enact the legislation.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

STONEHENGE (POP FESTIVAL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Coleman.]

4.36 a.m.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: This is the third consecutive all-night sitting this week and I would not choose to keep the House sitting at this hour.
The Minister will remember my speaking in the House about Stonehenge a few months ago. We are certainly proud of the monument, but there are times when it proves something of a mixed blessing. I mentioned then that Stonehenge used to belong to the family of Sir Philip Antrobus, who lives in Amesbury, and later it was presented to the nation. Last year the Minister collected from visitors no less a sum than £154,955. Indeed, the Minister has every cause to be grateful for the past munificence of local people and it is because of their help that he is today a highly successful stately home owner. The number of visitors leaves Blenheim, Chatsworth and Longleat standing.
I spoke in December about the immense significance attached to the fact that the main axis of the monument is aligned to the mid-summer sunrise. I mentioned that the monument is highly sophisticated inter-locking series of astronomical observing instruments of astounding ingenuity.
Indeed, the French share our fascination of alignments. I mentioned in December that the Arc de Triomphe was set up to commemorate the victory of Napoleon's troops and that Paris is aligned so that the sun, when viewed from the Champs Elysées on Napoleon's birthday on 15th August sets in the center of the arch.
Certainly as the years go by the fascination of the summer solstice at Stonehenge continues to grow and grow. This summer yet again a free pop festival was expected at Stonehenge from 18th June to 26th June. It had been widely advertised.
The Department owns some 30 acres of land on which the monument stands. These 30 acres are ringed by a larger area belonging to the National Trust and let to tenant farmers, among them my

constituent Mr. Jack Wort, who is an excellent farmer and a first-class citizen.
On 14th June, a week before the solstice, Lady Birk wrote to me. I quote only two sentences:
The Department will do what it can in conjunction with the police to prevent the invasion and abuse of land under its control. We realise, of course, that action to deter trespass on our land may deflect the festival on to other land nearby.
In the event, that is precisely what happened.
The free festival was deflected on to other land nearby. Mr. Jack Wort had 20 cows in his field. A large notice had been affixed to the gate bearing the words "Private land". The gate was padlocked. His farm manager reported "All quiet" at 9.45 p.m. An hour later hippies had descended like an army of locusts. Thwarted in their am to reach the monument, unable to penetrate the Minister's defences, denied the chance to pitch their camp within the stone circle, they turned off the road in sight of but a few hundred yards short of the monument, forced Mr. Wort's padlocked gate, and moved in. By the time they left, hundreds of yards of fencing had been destroyed and damage done to the tune of some £2,000.
As Lary Birk had written,
We realise, of course, that action to deter trespass on our land may deflect the festival on to other land nearby.
It certainly did.
It cannot be right—and this is the nub of my submission—that a Department of State should knowingly and publicly put at risk the property of a private citizen and, when damage has been sustained, wash its hands of the responsibility. The action by the Minister, however honourable—and he is right to give top prioity to the protection of the monument—was directly responsible for what happened.
I cannot anticipate what the Minister will say at the end of this debate. If he finds the present situation acceptable, it will reflect little credit on his Department, and it will not be the end of the story. With £154,955 tucked under his belt, the Minister will hardly endear himself to my constituents if he cannot find 1 per cent. of that sum to compensate Mr. Jack Wort for damage directly caused by his own Department's action. I hope that the Minister does not intend to show us


that he is prepared to fight for his monument to the last round and to the last Wiltshire farmer.
Stonehenge stands up starkly in the big open landscape. It is visible from miles away. No one knows what purpose it served. No one knows who built it. No one knows from where the stones came. It is this mystery and magic surrounding the monument which makes it so powerful a magnet.
I shall be deeply shocked if the Minister suggests that his duty is to safeguard his own plot at whatever cost to his immediate neighbours. Mr. Jack Wort's land provided the escape valve. It eased the pressure on the monument. It provided Stonehenge with the necessary protection.
This is the third year running that Mr. Wort has had trouble. Is he to have trouble again next year? What does the Minister plan to ensure that next July at 4.45 in the morning we are not once again debating the matter here?
Would it not be a simple matter to set road blocks on the approach roads and to direct the main stream of traffic away from the monument altogether? Will the Minister do that? Will he give assurances here and now that Mr. Wort's claim will be considered? Will he give the further assurance that next year Mr. Wort and his neighbours, if they can be shown once more to have taken pressure off the monument, at their own heavy cost, will in simple equity be eligible for compensation?

4.45 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): Last December in a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, although at a much more reasonable hour, the hon. Gentleman raised the matter of damage to Stonehenge rather than around Stonehenge. I remember the night particularly, because I had two more debates after the hon. Gentleman's debate at 9.30 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman has asked tonight for a number of assurances that I am sure he realises I am not in a position to give on this occasion. I should like to make it clear, to avoid misunderstanding, that the Department has neither

encouraged nor condoned the free festival at Stonehenge. It is unauthorised and entirely unwelcome. The event took place on the Department's land surrounding the monument in 1976 only because trespassers established a substantial presence by forcible means and the police advised that it would be impracticable to expel them.
The vicinity of the monument is unsuitable as a site for a festival. The area is highly sensitive archaeologically, so that the digging of pits for latrines or even levelling ground in order to erect a platform or tents is liable to cause archaeological damage. In fairness, I must add that the festival participants themselves have no desire to cause such damage to the monument and have accepted advice about particularly vulnerable places. Nevertheless, the risk of such damage exists. The presence near the monument of what, without wishing to be provocative, I can only describe as a noisy and—in a sanitary sense—sordid encampment undoubtedly offended many visitors to the monument, a high proportion of whom are, at this time of year, from overseas.
For those reasons, and because we do not wish to encourage the belief that monuments in our care are available for free festivals, we thought it right to defend the monument and the land immediately surrounding it in the ownership of the Department more thoroughly this year. I am glad that we were successful, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for his support for our action. I regret that the festival was able to establish itself on other land in the vicinity and that the owner and occupier of the land suffered damage and loss from the forcible invasion. I sympathise sincerely with Mr. Jack Wort. I have not met him, but I know of his record and reputation as a public-spirited citizen and one who has also shown great tolerance in the face of the provocation he has had in the past.
As I have explained, the Department has protected the land in its care, for good reasons, but we cannot be held responsible for the actions of the festival-goers. We do not organise the festival or give it any support or encouragement. The fact that the Department took steps to protect the property in its own ownership does


not mean that it can then be held responsible for the property of other people who were affected.
The suggestion that the trespass on Mr. Wort's land protected the monument would not, I am advised, stand legal examination. As a matter of general principle, it would be unjust and illogical for anybody suffering a trespass to be able to claim against others whose property next door was better protected. The hon. Gentleman will realise that one of the reasons why I am saying this is the implication for other areas where, say, a householder or public authority adequately protects buildings or land and others suffer as a result.
The only point I can think of at present is that of football crowds doing damage to shops and houses on their way to football grounds, in which cases the owners of the grounds cannot be expected to compensate all in the area for something a third party does. Under the law as it stands, any property-owner is entitled to use a reasonable amount of force to eject trespassers from his land. Alternatively, he can seek an injunction or an order for possession, although I agree that that is too long-winded.
If his property sustains damage he may seek compensation through the courts from the person responsible for inflicting that damage. This is the general situation, which applies whatever the number of trespassers or the purpose of the trespass. It is true that in certain circumstances, where large numbers of people are involved, and these include not only pop festivals but other types of event where large numbers are involved, it may not always be easy or cheap for property owners affected by such events to obtain permission or compensation for damage through these procedures as quickly or as fully as might be desirable. Those who suffer in this way deserve every sympathy. In the case of this festival, it is extremely difficult to identify all the organisers of the festival—or to believe that there is a great deal of organisation about it.
It is an unfortunate fact that if sufficient people get together and break the law it is very hard to prevent it happening, or, as in this case, to identify the

culprits. The Working Group on Pop Festivals is currently looking at the whole question of the control of pop festivals. It is to be hoped that they will be able to find ways of alleviating the problems to which some—and it must be stressed that it is only a small proportion—of these festivals give rise.
However, I must bear in mind that the Law Commission has also looked recently at the problem of trespass. If weighed carefully the need to protect the rights of property-owners against the need to avoid creating situations conducive to breaches of the peace. It concluded that, except where residential property was involved, the balance of advantage lay in leaving the property-owner to exercise his rights through the civil courts. It is to Mr. Wort's credit that he has been very tolerant and has avoided a confrontation.
We must consider future action to protect not only the monument but the surrounding land. There have been discusions among the police, the local authorities, the National Trust and the Department about the recurrent festival at or near Stonehenge. My Department has been willing to co-operate in joint efforts to deal with it, but so far no effective means of keeping the festival out of the area has been found.
The nature of the terrain, which affords a large choice of areas with little physical obstruction to invasion, presents a most formidable problem for the Wiltshire police, for whom I have much sympathy. All I can say is that we would most gladly co-operate in a fresh examination of the problem and possible ways of dealing with it. The hon. Member will understand that I would prefer not to be more specific.
He has already had some discussions with Lady Birk, who has responsibilities in this. We shall welcome discussions on future policy and should start them at an early stage, in time for next year.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: The Minister has not commented on the fact, which I stressed strongly three times, that his Department is on record as saying
We realise, of course, that action to deter trespass on our land may deflect the festival on to other land nearby.


Does he endorse that statement? Does he agree that action by his Department was responsible for the army of hippies moving on to Mr. Wort's land?

Mr. Marks: It was not action by the Department that caused the damage. It to

was action by the people that caused the damage.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes Five o' clock a.m.